User talk:Road Wizard/Archive 4

This 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.

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For single-handedly saving List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom from what I had thought was sure delisting and making it one of the best politics-related FLs that we have. I know this is for afds, but I don't care, we don't have a FL barnstar yet. -- Scorpion0422 19:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why have you earned a barnstar for this? You removed the 'Notes and key events' column, the most useful column on the list. Has the world gone mad? It has been replaced by a list of PMs' birthplaces, the most irrelevant and trivial piece of information imaginable! For a demonstration that brief 'Notes and key events' descriptions really do work, I direct you to the German version of the list of US Presidents. (I intend no offence, of course – I respect the work that you put into the list. I am currently looking at improving the PM list, and I am basically asking your permission to reinstate the Key Notes column. I'm not terribly good at begging.)

As I currently envisage it, I would get the list looking something like this:

	Portrait	Name	Term of office	Political party	Other ministerial offices held while Prime Minister	Monarchs served · Electoral mandates Notes and key events	Refs
		Tony Blair	2 May 1997 27 June 2007	Labour	First Lord of the Treasury & Minister for the Civil Service	Elizabeth II · Identity cards .	[1][2]

What d'you think? BartBassist (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Albertgenii12 (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I asked for

Sorry, my mistake. I had forgotten Wikipedia's ability to automatically correct capitalisation in a search. I restored the speedy delete tag and the redirect has since been deleted. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You may have been right first time! Articles which previously linked to

NHS Trust do not seem to be going to NHS trust instead. Where I have previously sorted out capitalisation of article names, this hasn't happened. I'll try again in an hour, after which I guess I'll have to restore the redirect. Millstream3 (talk

) 09:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Further thought: I know that various bots run on WP. Do you know how easy it would be to get one to replace all links to

NHS Trust with a link to NHS trust? The redirect could then be safely deleted. Millstream3 (talk

) 09:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. I would be a little cautious with using a fully automated bot for this type of work as there may be a few instances where the correct capitalisation is used. Even if all the instances are converted to lower case I would suggest retaining the upper case page as redirects are a minimal burden on Wikipedia's servers.

Requests for bot assistance can be made at

bot policy first. Road Wizard (talk

) 23:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it was a bit of an overexaggeration in the first instance that you had 'eradicated TOTALLY!' all of my edits in the article 'Margaret Thatcher'; BUT it is definitely justified NOW you and your other contributors have removed ALL traces of my edits and left not a single trace of my edits. You may think you know Lady T.. but until you work with the Tories you will never know; I assure you I absolutely categorically could debate and WIN defending the Conservatives; you may think you're a rightist and voted a few times but until you know the Tories as well as I do.. GIVE OTHERS A CHANCE to get their edits across; this is not the iron-circle or socialism whereby everyone has an equal chance, you may want the ultimate power over the Wikipedia because this is all to your life editing information to make things look pathetically stupid in order to convey a message that the masses can understand; whereas I am above the masses and indeed you and so do not need to equate to this level of bureaucracy; please go and join the Labour Party.. and be out of government for another century when we've been in for more times in the 20th century than you have! And please stop upholding the wikipedia bureaucray of read this and read that; if Wikipedia is supposed to be 'the encyclopedia that anyone can edit' let 'ANYONE' edit it and get past your quasi attempt at a stupid constitution in order to keep regulation and stringent checks on your 'contributors' this is just an extension of socialism with a facade of aiding the greater good of making intelligence conveyable to the many. And please refer to my MANY contibutions which signify WIKIPEDIA IS NOT MY LIFE, I cannot though say the same for you. PoliceChief (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I only reverted the links you made to two incorrect articles. The bulk of the remaining reversions were made by other editors without any input from me. If you don't believe me I would invite you to look through my contributions for the last couple of days and see where I have discussed your edits (as a quick reference, there is only the one message on your talk page).

If you have a problem with other editors reverting your work then please take it up with them or raise it on the article's talk page.

Finally I would ask that you try to remain

civil in your interactions with other editors. It will be a lot harder for you to convince people of the validity of your arguments if you throw false accusations at random editors. Regards. Road Wizard (talk

) 23:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologise but I find it so terribly difficult to keep any edits on because of the many conspiring editors who wish to seek dominance over articles purely because they have edited this page a couple of times, not suggesting that you do. But it is probably was misdirected anger and I sincerely apologise but I shall remain resolute and astute although civility does not even come into question when all the justification one gets for edits is a single line of response and their entry deleted swiftly by someone of opposing view or indeed an editor most likely to be an administrator. Thanks for understanding. PoliceChief (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I can understand how frustrating it is to have your work undone by somebody else. The key thing though is to remain calm and ask them to explain why they disagree with what you wrote. Once you understand their reasoning you can try to work towards some form of compromise (this could include a minor rewording or the provision of

dispute resolution

.

While we always attempt to reach a

points of view

that are verifiable and supported by reliable sources. The only way forward in this situation is to discuss the problem with other editors and agree on a solution.

You shouldn't worry about administrators that much. They are just normal editors with a few extra tools. They often know a lot more of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia than more recent editors, but they are not infallible. Road Wizard (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the Lifetime template as particularly useful as it creates a dependence on a template for a something that doesn't need it, it confuses new users by combining DEFAULTSORT and categorisation, and it doesn't really provide any indication as to what the numbers and text are for (ie producing categories and a default sort key for the categories on the page), again creating confusion. It may be easier to type out when adding the info to an article, but after that I see it as more harmful than useful. mattbr 15:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Responded at user's talk page. Road Wizard (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a view shared with many other editors, and there are examples on Template talk:Lifetime on the confusion it causes. mattbr 15:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Mattbr. Road Wizard (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible, if youre an admin, to delete this page? I deleted it because ... I thought i could destroy it that way. Thanks. Albertgenii12 (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Responded at user's talk page. Road Wizard (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Why can't I make a criticisms section here when other articles such as the nestle one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestle) have them as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.44.79 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because another article includes something, it doesn't automatically mean that it is a good thing. Many articles are two or three lines long, that doesn't mean that we should reduce all other articles down to two or three lines to match them.

In general, sections with titles like "Criticism" or "Controversy" are a bad thing. They attract a multitude of negatively phrased issues and do not lend themselves well for putting forward any other side of an issue. It therefore makes it extremely difficult to comply with the key

neutral point of view policy

.

In this case User:Hroðulf has taken the content of your criticism section and placed it within the body of the text where it can be read in context (see here). Is there any particular reason why this is not acceptable to you? Road Wizard (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

So what if I brak a section off in the main bit for iraq war?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.44.79 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a need to have a separate section? Your edit only appears to contain 2 sentences related to the Iraq War so there seems to be little justification for it. If every two-sentence issue had its own section then the article would look incredibly messy. Road Wizard (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to thank you for helping me clean up the tags for Adam Kontras. I was a victim of OES (Overlapping Edit Syndrome). Best regards. --OliverTwisted 08:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:169.244.198.34 most recently blanked the section 'history' in the article Dominica. I have fixed this (with some difficulty), but it went unoticed for 11 days and was edited over by other users (I had to go to an earlier version). There also appears to be vandalism to Suriname and Curaçao which has been edited over and looks so fiddly that I'm not even sure how to begin putting it right (see Special:Contributions/169.244.198.34). I have not looked at all the others yet, but there seems to be a lot of vandalism. I have only seen one constructive edit.

From remarks made on Talk:Indictment (I have just removed these), this user appears to be a school (or at least one or more of the individuals editing from this address is a school-child). I imagine that it might be a good idea to stop them from editing anonymously, but I am not sure what to do or how to go about it. Perhaps you can help. Thank you. James500 (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is often difficult to deal with and there are few easy answers. If a single editor or IP address is the cause of the problem the best thing to do is to issue vandal warnings on their talk page (see WP:Vandalism). Vandal warnings escalate from level 1 (general note) to level 4 (final warning). If an editor vandalises within 24 hours of a final warning you can ask for an administrator to block them by reporting them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. If it is the first time they have breached a level 4 warning they will probably get a short block of a few hours; repeat offenders are subjected to progressively longer blocks ranging through days, weeks, months and, in severe cases, years.

If the problem is with a single page being vandalised by several different editors you can

request page protection. There are different levels of protection depending on the extent of the problem (see WP:Protection policy

for details).

I have left a level 1 warning at User talk:169.244.198.34 about the vandalism on Dominica. If you see any further vandalism by this user in the next few days feel free to issue a level 2 warning. Because of the escalation process it is important to remember to issue a warning, both as an attempt to convince the editor to stop being disruptive and also as a log for future editors to see the scale of the problem posed by that user.

To help you with vandal warnings you can activate the

Twinkle tool

in your Gadgets menu within "My preferences". Twinkle adds new buttons to the top of the page including a "warn" button for User talk pages. Using the warn button you can select the appropriate warning template and issue it automatically with just a few clicks of the mouse.

However, one thing to bear in mind when issuing warnings is that a determined vandal will always find a way to get around a block eventually. If possible a misbehaving editor should be encouraged to edit the encyclopaedia constructively. If you have a opportunity to turn an editor from a hindrance to a help then please consider whether a harsh warning or gentle guidance would best suit the situation.

I have looked at Suriname but the one edit the user has made was already corrected. Was there some other problem that needs fixing?

The edits to Curaçao are several months old and involved changing the year that the census data was based on. The year has been changed by another editor since 169.244.198.34's last edit so hopefully someone else has fixed it. Unfortunately I do not have access to the source material for the census so I cannot confirm whether the new information is correct. If you are concerned that the information may be incorrect you should ask for verification on the article talk page. Road Wizard (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't notice the robot edit to Suriname. I thought it had just been left. Sorry about that. Same for Curacao. My blunder. James500 (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oreet. Someone has moved Next United Kingdom general election without talking about it first. Can you move it back at all, I can't. Cheers doktorb _words^deeds 18:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately only an administrator can untangle this mess. Before I request intervention through a {{db-move}} it may be a good idea to have a show of consensus in support of the reversion. I have started a discussion at Talk:2009 or 2010 United Kingdom general election if you wish to contribute. I will also invite the editor that made the move. Road Wizard (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how anything can be in the article at wikipedia if it doesn´t have any sourses? You let some of the text be aproved, how come? I don´t get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.202.186 (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not approved anything. You asked at Talk:Mats Helge for someone to restore text that had been removed by another user. I explained that the sources you had supplied were not valid (two of them being copies of the Wikipedia article on mirror sites) and advised that you would have to supply some higher quality source evidence to support your text. That is the entirety of my involvement on this subject.

The article itself currently has no sources. As long as it remains unsourced there is a strong likelihood that it will be nominated for deletion. Road Wizard (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, etymology of a word, discussion of derived and related words, and usage notes (including which dialects it is primarily used in), are very much within the remit of an unabridged dictionary. Wiktionary has full etymologies and detailed usage notes in many articles. hiya isn't anywhere near being a complete article, and shouldn't be mistaken for the limit of what Wiktionary is capable. It lacks quotations, for a start. Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Eh? Can you please explain your point as I fail to understand what the Wiktionary article has to do with this. I have raised a concern that a large amount of the information in the hi ya article duplicates what should be in Wiktionary and much of what is left is original research. It is not worth suggesting a transwiki of the extra information as even the information relevant to a dictionary is poorly sourced or even unsourced.

  If you are objecting to me bundling the "primarily used in American English" and "always said to other people and never to oneself" issues in with the original research claims instead of separating them out into "original research that could be transferred to Wiktionary if ever properly sourced" claims then I would suggest the PROD argument would get incredibly large and unwieldy. If you want to expand the PROD then please go ahead, but I don't see the benefit.

  Was there some other point you were trying to make? Road Wizard (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, and I thought that I had made it clearly. ☺ Here it is rephrased: The "elements of this article that are beyond a dictionary" are, in fact, not beyond a dictionary. They are well within the remit of an unabridged dictionary, especially one that is not paper, and not bound by the space limitations of paper. It's a common mistake made by Wikipedia editors to think that Wiktionary doesn't cover various aspects of lexicography, therefore they are left to Wikipedia. The truth is that Wiktionary aims to cover, for "all words of all languages", all aspects of origin, etymology, usage, language and dialect, spelling, pronunciation, translation, meaning, part of speech, and related and derived words. Uncle G (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been considering how best to reply to you over the last few days and getting myself extremely stressed out about it. I find your pedantic lecture extremely unhelpful. It is also incredibly galling that you have decided to lecture me about what is appropriate for Wiktionary when I was the one that assessed it as being inappropriate content for either Wikipedia or Wiktionary. If you want to bother someone with details of what should be in Wikipedia and what should be in Wiktionary, go talk to the author of the article.

On the other hand, if you think that original theories on etymology are not beyond the scope of Wiktionary then please arrange a transwiki of the deleted content. I am sure that Wiktionary will be greatly benefited from the inclusion of such original thinking.

If I am going to get this much hassle every time I make a correct and uncontested PROD then I might as well not bother. Road Wizard (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Road Wizard in practice when this is done to cover poor behaviour its nearly always undone. - Galloglass 14:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have made suggestions for inclusion criteria for

Thanks for letting me know about the IPs edit, was obviously a misunderstanding as the person must of thought id deleted his comments completly at first rather than just moving it to the bottom of the page. I should have added a comment there originally to see bottom of the page just to avoid confusion. Thanks again BritishWatcher (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The edition I made is NOT in copyright and is presented on the Internet Archive website as follows: Stephen Langton : hero of Magna charta (1215 A.D.), septingentenary (700th anniversary), 1915 A.D. (1915) I have also noted it in the reference section.

Author: Leeming, J. R. (John Robert) Subject: Langton, Stephen, d. 1228; Magna Carta; Great Britain -- Biography Publisher: London : Skeffington Possible copyright status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT Language: English Call number: ADR-8101 Digitizing sponsor: MSN Book contributor: Robarts - University of Toronto Collection: toronto Mugginsx (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if it is out of copyright then it is technically acceptable. However a quote of such a large size is not usually the best way to insert text into an article as it breaks the flow and style of the narative. The normal method of editing is to add text in your own words with short quotations where necessary then listing the source as a reference for your new text.

Don't be surprised if someone comes along later and rewrites the paragraph. Road Wizard (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am a new editor and it you wish to rewrite this section with the benefit of your Wiki expertise, i certainly have no objection Mugginsx (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wiki. You will get used to the way we work after a while. ^_^

I just noticed you added it to the

lead section. The lead should be about 4 or 5 paragraphs and provide a summary of the whole article. The paragraph you added focusses too much on one aspect of the article and goes into far too much detail. It might be appropriate to place it somewhere later in the text; I will see if I can find a better location and change the phrasing at the same time. Road Wizard (talk

) 15:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That is acceptable to me and thank you for your help. Mugginsx (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The list of 25 Barons ensuring enforcement of the charter are already listed at Magna Carta#Participant list so there is no need to repeat their names in the lead. I will take those out now, which should cut the paragraph in half. I will examine what is left and see what we can do with it. Road Wizard (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't done the removal yet, but it seems to me what we will be left with is a summary of the paragraphs at Magna Carta#Rebellion and signing of the document. The source you have would make a good reference for that section, but I don't think a direct quote would add anything further. Would you be content for me to remove the whole paragraph and set the source as a reference for the existing text? Road Wizard (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, although I had hoped that Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury's description, contemporaneous and present at the signing in 1216 would find a place. Do what you think best. Mugginsx (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the passage you quoted was contemporary. It looks more like the words of John Robert Leeming in 1915. For example the line, "The Peers who were entrusted with this authority were certainly some of the most celebrated of their time," would not have been written by a contemporary, but someone looking back on the period in hindsight. Road Wizard (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Humm, I believe you are correct. He does make some quotes but that was not one of them. Upon reflection it would definitely be a good reason for reversion. I did not catch that, sorry. Mugginsx (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the entire paragraph put. Your advice is sound and well-meaning. If I find something of Stephen Langton that looks good I will look to you for advice before putting it in this or another article. It's a beautiful article and I do not want to mess it up. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I like what you inserted using the source. Mugginsx (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

→ You don't need to consult me every time you want to add something, but I will be happy to give you advice if you need it. One thing to remember is that, while I have more experience than you in editing Wikipedia, my opinion is only one of many. Road Wizard (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevrtheless it is a wise opinion, and you were courteous and informative in your posts. Thanks, Mugginsx (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to prove that this "Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet." is NOT opinion. Political compass has NO source for this statement: http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by LVAustrian (talk • contribs) 20:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems I was writing a message on your talk page as you were writing one here.[1]

As I said on your page, what you have written may be the truth, but it is not verifiable fact as judged by our

verifiability policy. Road Wizard (talk

) 20:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet#Economic_policy The article on Pinochet notes, as I said in the political compass page, that free market economic policies were not even discussed until 1975, the coupe took power in 1973. If he was a free marketeer why did he take 2 years to just start talking about free market policies? He wasn't a free marketeer. He was a military general and liked the idea of controlling the economy. The political compass makes an unsourced claim in its website. The entire thing is unsourced. It is not deserving of a Wikipedia article because its complete junk. It is very sad it got any media attention at all, but sometimes crackpots do get attention. The gentlemen running the website, have made no effort to correct their page or provide sources (I’ve contacted them twice in the last two or three years) providing them counterpoints – to which they provide none in return. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LVAustrian (talk • contribs) 20:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I cannot remove material from a website I do not own. I can however point out the FACT that Political Compass has no sources.(LVAustrian (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

Again we seem to be talking at the same time. The latest message I left on your talk page was a suggestion to remove the unsourced information from the

Political compass article, not from the subject's webpage.[2] You can sometimes achieve your goals by working within the system rather than against it. Road Wizard (talk

) 20:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Other than removing the whole article, there really isn't anything that needs to be removed. Noting the websites lack of sources, as I have done, is needed. (LVAustrian (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

OK. If you are happy to leave it as it is then there is nothing more I can help you with. Do not be surprised if your unsourced opinions are removed from the article later though. Road Wizard (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is it OK for David Beckham to be called English but not Wiliam Hague? Ausseagull (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

As I have mentioned several times, there is no over-arching policy on UK nationality, so we have to rely on localised consensus for each article. If editors of the David Beckham article have reached consensus that he should be shown as English and the editors of William Hague article have reached consensus that he should be shown as British then that is acceptable.

The problem comes when an editor tries to impose either the legal nationality (British) or the specific nationality (English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, etc.) on all articles without gaining a consensus first. It is a very sensitive issue for some people and frequently leads to "edit wars" where editors on opposing sides of an argument continually revert each others changes without trying to discuss and resolve their differing viewpoints.

I generally avoid getting involved in such debates as I see it as a distraction from the important work I do elsewhere on the wiki. The only reason I got involved this time was that the phrasing of your comment on Talk:Michael Howard appeared to suggest consensus had finally been reached on a central guideline, so I investigated the issue and your edits further. If it wasn't for that I would probably have left it for some other editor to argue the case. Road Wizard (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. So what I have to do is suggest in the discussion pages that the English person being discussed can be referred to as English. And if there are no objections after, say, a week, I can change "British" to "English"? OK? Ausseagull (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fair to me. As a suggestion, I would make it clear that you are proposing to make the change in a number of days if there are no objections. As long as you make the timescale clear in your proposal I see no reason why you can't reduce it to 2 or 3 days instead of a week. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ausseagull (talk) 08:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if I disregarded your message, but nothing in Wikipedia permits actions that are felonies, which according to the Code of Virginia, annotated, it is to post the actual signature of any elected and sitting office holder in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I have frankly had it. If the signature appears again, I am washing my hands of this and reporting it to the Virginia Attorney General's Office and the Virginia and US Election Commissions. It is a felony for whoever is doing it to post his, or any other sitting office holder's "signature, facsimile thereof, other unique and private identifying information in any public media where that signature or other identifying private information could be used by any unauthorized person, persons or organization to usurp, embezzle, undermine or falsely claim the authority of action of the office. Violations of the section shall be punishable by no less than 2 nor more than 25 years imprisonment and/or a $100,000 dollar fine, or both." (Code of Virginia, Elections and Elected Officials; statutes appertaining to) I WILL NOT be a part of committing a felony. Period. If it shows up again, you and wikipedia can deal with the Virginia Attorney General's office. Themoodyblue (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, all that would be more impressive if the phrase "authority of action" appeared anywhere in the Code of Virginia... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Themoodyblue (talk · contribs) has been blocked from editing for issuing legal threats. Road Wizard (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You've

Eh, I'm probably overstepping my rights here, but I've gone ahead and opened an AfD here. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the vote. Ive replied to "De Valera abolished the Oath of Allegiance" - I doubt it! on the talk pageCathar11 (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This was first suggested about three years ago; your comments on it seemed to indicate support for the idea; I have only recently come across the suggestion, which seems to me to make a good deal of sense, and would clear up much of the confusion surrounding the suggestion that Mandelson is currently Deputy PM in all but name. If the merger does come about, I have created a new table for it at Talk:Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom#New Merge.

By the way, apologies for my earlier remarks on this page concerning

I wouldn't say I supported the idea, as I am fairly indifferent to it. I would suggest starting a new discussion on the page instead of adding to the old one, as it is a little buried among the other discussions.

Sorry for not replying to your comments above about the Prime Minister list as I was on an extended wikibreak at the time. The removal of the notes column was not my idea but a requirement of keeping it at featured status (see here). The concern about the notes column is that it is an entirely arbitrary judgement as to what gets left in or out and the entries are completely unsourced. Some of the sources I added may cover the entries, but I know for a fact that most of them don't. However each entry should be sourced within its linked article so it shouldn't be an immediate danger; I will leave it to the next featured review to consider. Road Wizard (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologies - my attempt to fix the histories was less successful than I hoped. I have restored

Oops, sorry for breaking that - I should have tested better. :( Thanks for the sandbox - I know what I did wrong (I expected {{{foo|bar}}} to be "bar" and not "" if {{...|foo=}} is given), so I've fixed User:Road Wizard/Sandbox 5. If it looks good, we can update the template again. Thanks again for stopping the breakage. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be working now. Feel free to go ahead when you are ready. Road Wizard (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool, will do --h2g2bob (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on the erroneous categories found thus far, there are 231 potentially erroneous articles that have been tagged [3]. Do you want me to detag these en masse now or do you want to go thru them manually? –xeno^talk 18:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there is more than 1 or 2 erroneous articles in a batch that small so I am happy to go through them manually. It will also give me the chance to confirm the bot assessment and remove the auto flag. Thanks. Road Wizard (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but FYI these have been already been filtered from articles that are still in other UKPOL cats - so it may be a larger percentage than you're estimating. Let me know if you change your mind. –xeno^talk 20:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ping!

Please advise. (law lords) –xeno^talk

18:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to thank you for your work in polishing up the article and pushing it towards GA status. Does the article fall under WP UK Politics? Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I found his story quite intriguing. However it is you who did most of the hard work, well done. :)

I am not sure if it falls under the UK Politics scope as it is a borderline case. There is some political activity mentioned on the page but I am not sure if it is enough to qualify. I am going to clarify the scope in the next few weeks and might add the banner then. I was working on the article more from the perspective of a WikiProject Biography member. Road Wizard (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What changes do you advice for jan-willem breure, can you be specific?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Meryllid (talk • contribs) 14:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I replied at the user's talk page.[4] The most important point at the moment is to add reliable sources to

notability has yet to be established. Road Wizard (talk

) 14:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The comment below is in response to a discussion at the article talk page.[5] Road Wizard (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most points, i also contacted meryl about that, she said she understands now. But I disagree with statement This article needs additional citations for verification. JW Productions has lots of documented work, but he is a visual artist and directs links to his productions (mainly videos) are not supported by wiki. For example youtube is taken out by the auto bot and when a link to the official tmf (videoclip) site was posted that supported the article, it got removed. As if to say, it is only aloud to post written articles when infact JW Productions´ creations are visual and are rarely repeated in an written form. Could you please be more precise what sources are missing and what you would like to see (keeping in mind JW Productions does visual and audio art)?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklampt (talk • contribs) 22:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I continued the discussion at the article talk page.[6] Road Wizard (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of the update, i´ve added the tmf source amongst others, the videolcip starts by showing ´jw productions´fly by in text —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklampt (talk • contribs) 10:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you look at Mary Dimmick Harrison and decide whether it should have the biography header or not. You can toggle between the two versions. I like an initial header so I can tell when the lede ends and the chronology restarts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I tried your compromise solution, and suppressed the TOC, but he just reverted it. I think you get the idea based on his name, he is used to getting his way. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I will try to help resolve the situation, but I would suggest waiting until agreement is reached before making an edit we are discussing. If you try to introduce a compromise proposal that has been rejected on the talk page you are bound to find it is rejected on the article also. Road Wizard (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me we don't have to resort to making invalid inferences from names to see who is going from forum to forum in order to get his way. Though Richard Arthur Norton "likes" an initial header, he's wrong to insist his preference–and thus far, it's his alone–prevail when the header he proposes makes no sense. - Nunh-huh 22:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Since there is no written guideline, we look for creating consensus to have it or not have it. When two people have strong divergent opinions, its best to bring in third parties. And of course what makes "sense" is 100% subjective with the lack of a specific guideline. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Have tried to explain at bio talk page and here - basically after the blocked users foray into death by disease cats - I am wondering whether now that the death project exists - is it in the biography projects interest to be tagged at all death by disease cats - or is the death project tag sufficient? The seccond point was that at 'years of death' - we do have bio and death together - which makes sense - cheers

Hi Road Wizard, I just noticed your comments on the Political Parties Project page regarding the Australian Democrats. I had been working the changes on my Sandbox, as you had suggested. I invited others to view the work- for a fortnight, as you suggested. The minute I when 'live' with my changes I had a what can only be called a bot-like reflexive revert by user:Timeshift9. I assumed the user was online and immediately asked for a discussion at both talk:Australian Democrats and User_talk:Timeshift9#Australian_Democrats but have had no response. Your advice would be appreciated. Thanks,
Paul.
Paul Roberton (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that discussion is now in progress. The key now is to reach consensus on what should be in the article. Good luck. Road Wizard (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The county of GWENT is part of Wales and as such by removing my contribution this is none other than vandalism. The mere suggestion tha england will remove and steal more land from Wales is racist and as such i will be reporting this issue to wikipedia and relevant political parties. As for the Rover 25 it is not a small car it is a compact car. Very very childish to remove my wording, should i hear from y ou further i will report it, go away —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierce51 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As you are a new user I can understand that your unfamiliarity with our systems and processes can be frustrating but being overly aggressive will not help matters. Before I address the issues you raised I would suggest that you should read our guidance on

being civil

to other editors.

For your accusations of vandalism, the warnings I have given you are because you are making errors in your edits. This pair of edits on

Rover 200 Series again removed text without explanation and broke two internal links to car and Austin Rover Group

. Many of the other edits you made are of a similar standard.

I would ask you to be more careful when making edits in future and remember to use the edit summary. Road Wizard (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Pierce51 has reappeared as User:Pierce62. Not sure how to handle him/her... Lozleader (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have left the new account with a warning for deleting text without explanation. If the user wishes to escalate their disruptive edits then we escalate the warnings and request a block of the accounts. Hopefully they will learn their lesson soon and choose to engage in a constructive manner. Road Wizard (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor now appears to be evading an indefinite block by using an anonymous IP: [7]Lozleader (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User Simoen has removed some links to dutch pages, i always thought it was possible to link wiki dutch pages, what is your opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwumeiden (talk • contribs) 20:04, 10 January 2010

I did some work on the article. I don't think there are any album covers for which a suitable fair use rationale can be provided. (

Thanks for responding. It would be useful if you could leave responses on the review page. That way future editors can see the history of the discussion. It is especially important if you are unable to complete a request by the reviewer or disagree with a point raised by the review.

If an issue cannot or should not be completed at this time it will likely come up again in the future, especially if the article is nominated for another GA review in the future. Road Wizard (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• I added an image for which I could provide a significant fair use rationale. (
  talk
  ) 17:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

Thanks, but I am still awaiting an answer on the final issue, as mentioned on both your talk page and the review page. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the notification and for fixing the page Mr bot. For the information of talk page watchers, the image was included in some template code that I was trying to repair; if I had realised a fair use image was mixed in I would have cleared out much sooner. Further information about the template issue can be found in the Infobox legislature section from earlier in this talk page. Road Wizard (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Both mary and Maria and Leverly and Leversy are promoted as CWM's mother. I can't see any evidence for a family called Leversy and accept that Leverly is most likely, presumably Maria Leverly b.1717 and m.1738 in Sefton. www.familysearch.org But if you want Mary then.... Plucas58 (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't want either; I have no preference. I am just asking you to quote your sources when the information you add disagrees with other sources. Debrett's says she was Mary daughter of James Levery of London; I have encountered occasional errors in the 19th Century editions of Debrett's before, so if your source is of higher quality them we will go with that one. If your source is undecided then we will have to go with Debrett's as the only source currently with a definite answer.

The other issue of the 9th Viscount is odd. Where are you getting that from and who is the extra Viscount? Road Wizard (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Category:NHS lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:National Health Service lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have developed a table showing the holders of the four shadow-offices of the Great Offices of state. I would have thought that it would be of use somewhere on wikipedia, but can't find a suitable home for it. Ultimately I thought that it might replace the existing lists on the pages for the shadow offices, which appear odd and seem orphaned. Any ideas? BartBassist (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The reason I usually don't reclass them is that the gap between "stub" (short, terrible) and "B" (not too bad) is the least intuitive one in our system.

If I'm not closely familiar with the rating guidelines used by a particular project, then it's hard to tell if a) they prefer using Start or C in this range; b) if they use both, quite how they distinguish them. I used to usually just rate "start", but I've had people complain based on the Start/C distinction - why did I re-rate at a lower level than it is, etc etc - and so unless I know the project it usually seems safest to leave it blank. Since stubs are a more or less universal standard, though, it's easy enough to tell when one isn't one...

(At some point we really need to rationalise Start and C, but that's a battle to fight another day!)

As to the Bonham-Carter thing, my apologies. I normally remove the value for the rating= line, and the entire auto= line (because it refers to the now-removed rating), but nothing else - I think I must have deleted the middle bit by mistake.

Thanks for the feedback.

Yes, the reason the WP templates were modified to add the MAIN_CAT parameters was so that the DASHBot will pick up all the articles in that category. (This IS in the bot's instructions.) Since the changes were just made, you need to wait until the server refreshes and then fills the category, sometimes that can take 1 day or so. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

See tim's response, there is project banner's transclusions instead of categories. Okip 13:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There was no such person as "Mark Peters". A user deliberately included false information into the article for fun and I removed it. Take a look at the talk page.--

Dear Road Wizard,

The Nasty Party has been the nickname for the Tories for some time, especially in Michael Howard's leadership. I think it is fine that we have the Nasty Party, as a page. Labour was once Old Labour and we have that. Labour has New Labour. Now, people can equally say "Loony left" is just as offensive. So if you want to delete this page, delete New Labour, Old Labour and certainly Loony left because it is not fair.

--Harriet Harperson (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The key difference here is that

Old Labour and Loony left are articles or sections of articles which explain the context of the title and quote sources for verification. Your The Nasty Party page was a redirect to the Conservative Party article with no explanation of context or provision of source material. If you want to write an article or article section on the subject, which provides context and sources, then great; if not, then it shouldn't really be here. Road Wizard (talk

) 22:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You could be correct that it is the sock of a blocked user, however it is unsafe to assume that is the case. We can handle the situation simply by asking for a citation; when none is provided they get ignored. If they become disruptive then issue warnings and get them blocked the same as with any other user. Road Wizard (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your discussion. I'll merge the two now. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The editor is altering your comment now, are you ok with that, it has altered the discussion?

After I merged the duplicate discussions together, I removed the phrase "see the above discussion" from Road Wizard's comment so not to confuse future readers. I trust that Road Wizard will have no issue with this. I suggest that Off2riorob stops trying to fabricate controversy. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added a short note acknowledging the merge of the two sections.[8] Hopefully that will clear up the chronology for future readers and be acceptable to all parties. Road Wizard (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed the older pic as it just seems messy to me now, it has been replaced, would you comment on the issue, I am just going to ignore the issue now.

Off2riorob (talk

) 23:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the proper title of the article about this man; I simply disagreed with the placement of the db-move tag. Since the page had recently been moved, and since I didn't see any discussion that (1) agreed to undo the move, or (2) had been made at a previous time and had been ignored by the move, it seemed to me that it wasn't a noncontroversial issue. Nyttend (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you like Rollback? I've just seen you reverting on

Hi. Thanks for the offer, but I think I will keep my current access rights. Having read

Wikipedia:Rollback feature

I feel that the tool is too quick and powerful for my editing style. I would much prefer spending a few extra seconds double checking a correction through the undo feature than jump in with a possibly misjudged rollback.

Thanks again. Road Wizard (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've replied at the Infobox officeholder talk page. --TIAYN (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me Wizard, but that farce of a template needs to be deleted. How do I delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harperson123 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I replied to the user on their talk page and explained the

WP:TFD process. However the acount was later blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock-puppet of a blocked user. Road Wizard (talk

) 21:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little mystified about this right now. Is Harriet Harman simultaneously Acting Leader, Deputy Leader and Party Chair right now (if so, that seems ridiculous as her husband is Party Treasurer too)? Or is Jack Straw Acting Deputy Leader? I'm wondering this because I just found out about his Shadow Cabinet post of "Acting Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" which places him directly under Harman here and seems to be the same as calling him "Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition" or William Hague's "Senior Member". If Harman remains Deputy Leader as of now, does that mean she'll retain this after the leadership election later this month or will she have to renew her mandate too? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure. Jack Straw's title of "Acting Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" may just be an indication that he is shadowing Nick Clegg and perhaps has no bearing on his status in the Labour party. As a comparison the people shadowing Prescott (DPM & FSoS) and Mandelson (FSoS) weren't automatically the second most senior people in the Conservative party. Straw would be the obvious choice for shadowing Clegg's constitutional reform brief as that was part of his Justice Minister portfolio.

I am unclear about the Labour party rules for leadership elections. There are some sources online that say Harman is planning to stay on as Deputy Leader once the new leader is appointed, but an election could be forced if enough MPs want to rock the boat by nominating an opponent. Unfortunately the best sources I can locate at the moment are blogs. Road Wizard (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you can say Hague was his predecessor as Hague was never Shadow DPM.[9] There is also not normally a "deputy leader of the opposition" (and as far as I know there never has been) so there is no succession between "possible 2nd in command of the Labour Party in opposition" and "semi-official 2nd in command of the Conservative party in opposition". Road Wizard (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

But weren't Prescott and Mandelson's only shadows for their ETR and business briefs (respectively)? Another thing that makes me think that Straw's deputy-ship is more than just because of his judicial/constitutional expertise is that he isn't the outright Shadow Deputy Prime Minister like the other opposition ministers but the Acting Shadow Deputy Prime Minister. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the source simply lists a title and we have to speculate the motivations behind that title. For example we could speculate that the Conservative's "Shadow secretary for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister" title was an attempt to show who was shadowing Prescott while still distancing the party from the attitude of the public to a DPM role at that time. You may agree or disagree with my speculation, but we could never include it in the articles as it is

my personal analysis of source material

.

If we have a source that says Straw is the current official or unofficial deputy leader of the Labour Party then we could repeat that statement. We can't take a title (however intriguingly phrased) and draw a conclusion from it without supporting context. Road Wizard (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Is there a way to get in contact with the party? Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help so far Road Wizard. One think I'd like your help with though, is the Representation of the People Act. It's about to become a live issue, and the general level of knowledge of it is pretty poor. The last time an MP was prosecuted under a similar act was in 1911. I have a piece of paper with information on it that I am totally satisfied is accurate. I wish to put some of this information on the internet. Unfortunately, all the case law bar the Grell and Jack Straw cases predate the internet. All the legislation predates the internet. Nowhere on the internet is this information held. Incorrect information has been published by local newspapers and is available online. Where would you go from here? Chronos2010 (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Chronos2010

The key point to always remember is that we can only publish

reliable sources

that shows they are wrong.

If you have a paper that you have written yourself then currently it is considered

self published source

and has some of the same problems as original research as there is no evidence of independent scrutiny.

If there is published material in paper form, such as in a book, journal or newspaper, then we can cite that publication as the source of the statement. However just because something is on paper does not make it reliable; for example, very few people would believe everything they read in the Daily Sport. In cases where there is no reliably published material available then it is best that Wikipedia avoids mentioning the information at all. Road Wizard (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Okay. I view the face of the Act as saying one thing. You say I misinterpret it. Nobody has published an interpretation of the bill, but it my view of it is supported by what happened in the Miranda Grell case. And Wikipedia must remain silent. Oh well. Wikipedia is still a wonderful invention, and I value the time volunteers such as yourself put into it. Thank you for taking the time to go through it with me. 17:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Chronos2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronos2010 (talk • contribs)

For the issue about interpretation of the Act, section 106 says people who make false statements will be guilty of an "illegal practice". From the section of the Act you linked to about penalties a "corrupt practice" can trigger a prison sentence while an "illegal practice" seems to have a fine as the maximum penalty. Neither practice appears to mention barring from public office, so that may be triggered by another piece of legislation.

Some of what you said in the article may very well be true, but we need a reliable source to make the interpretation for us. Road Wizard (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I have updated this again as more details have been published. The quotes from PM are direct and verifiable on BBC iPlayer. I am keen to see Wikipedia remain up to date on this issue as it is of national importance and there is so little published in the public domain. What is out there must be collected! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronos2010 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Having added a comment on the discussion you may, or may not, like to know that I have added this article to Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Convention_Parliament_of_1399--Utinomen (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just got off the phone with the party's headquarters and was told that Straw is indeed Harman's acting deputy until she resumes her role as deputy leader after the leadership election. Is this official enough for me to insert this information on the relevant pages? Or is it possible to exude something more official from them? If so, I'll be unable to get it--I can only make international calls so many times before they become a major headache. Therequiembellishere (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

A phone conversation is not

verifiable and cannot form the basis of any content in Wikipedia. If the statement has been published somewhere then we can consider the quality of the publication and decide if can support a statement in an article. Road Wizard (talk

) 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for a further pestering about this old topic, but does Jack Straw's appearance at PMQs today opposite Nick Clegg give any credence toward calling him the acting deputy leader of the Labour Party? Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not particularly. I have taken a look at some of the coverage of today's session and there is nothing I can find to support that statement. In fact the BBC goes the opposite way by saying, "Jack Straw will do the honours for the opposition as Labour does not currently have a deputy leader."[10] It is possible that there is a reliable source out there that states Straw's role as being Harman's unofficial deputy, but we can't include that view point until we find it. Road Wizard (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Road Wizard

I have just been going back through the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies, and noticed a very interesting proposal by you about the project banner in Nov/Dec 2009, viz merging it to the banner of the UK Politics project. It seemed to be supported by all who commented, and if I had been watching at the time I'd have added my support too.

As far as I can see, this didn't actually happen, so I was wondering if you might still be interested in implementing it?

If you've moved on and now have other priorities, then that's fine and I'm sorry to disturb you .... but if perchance you could be persuaded to revisit this idea, it'd be great to have it done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Reference desk navigation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

George Galloway is a muslim. Why is it not on Wikipedia?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.130.26 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 8 September 2012

Wikipedia can only publish

reliable sources. If you think your information is correct, please provide a reliable source. Road Wizard (talk

) 21:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

May I remind you of your kind offer at Template talk:Infobox election#UK by-election? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it is going to be a few more days before I can take a look at it. I have been putting off something in real life that I really need to get finished today. After that I am going to try and expand

Did You Know? criteria. Road Wizard (talk

) 06:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Biography for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I placed an addition on the Gamiel Abdul Nasser page quoting the New York Times. In a second area, I quoted another Wikepedia article, yet I was rebuked. I am trying to understand correct policies. Bobby5000 (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)).Bobby5000.

Casliber (talk · contribs