User talk:Howicus/Archive 1

I have a talk page now. The redlink was driving me crazy. Howicus (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are a new user[1], welcome! You may want to check out... Welcome to Wikipedia!

I also see that you have discovered the Page Curation suite which is a powerful set of editing tools. Please use them wisely, they can be responsible for just as much harm as they can for positive, thoughtful, well written contributions to Wikipedia. If its a tool that you plan to use regularly or as a significant part of your time on WP, you might want to consider signing up for its associated newsletter. Best regards and more importantly, HAVE FUN! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Howicus. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaysia–Mauritius relations.
Message added by Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Thanks for pointing out my error and moving my archived talk pages to the precise user talk archive, it was defintely human error and I wasn't initially cognizant that I was creating an article.Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do the moving, but hey, you're welcome. Howicus (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Howicus, Thank you for your suggestion about the article. Could you be a bit more precise and inform me upon which sites do not fit in into the timeline and where they should be in the chronology of Kosovo settlements. As far as splitting the article goes, I am already contemplating the idea and collecting as much data as I can from different sources so as to start to have at least a small page for each article. Thanks again and hope to hear from you soon.--Atdheu (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I've been very busy lately. I don't know when I'll be able to explain my ideas fully. Just edit how you think it should be, don't worry about what I think. Howicus (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, will do.--Atdheu (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Howicus, I have started merging the articles and working so as to create new articles for the other sites. Should I delete the info on the sites from the Roman period sites page and show them as a list or just leave a brief description of the site. PS. When the work is done, should I remove the tag or are you the one that is responsible for doing that. Regards--Atdheu (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well. I think that for now, the summaries for Vindenis, Pestova, and the others of that length are about right. I think that the article should stay up for now, since some of the sites don't have articles.Howicus (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never actually put anything in to the AfC process. Until I did this one, I'd never noticed the "submit" button. Decided to see how it played. Appreciate you taking the time to be an approver! --plaws (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Howicus. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The Sprite Sisters, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article has been edited since it was tagged and is no longer a copyvio. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping me the note; I had no idea there was so much combat going on over Erica's entry. My edit was comparatively insignificant, so I hadn't been paying much attention to what was going on. I'm not sure if I can help much with the disputed material; I was unaware until recently that Erica had died back in March, but I can look into whatever I can do to help. Absurdist1968 (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your note to participate. I had made a small edit a while back as I knew of Erica's work from having known her quite well and have seen her perform over the years. Because of the situation with the article, I was even wrongfully accused of being a sock puppet. :-( My timing coincided to when I signed up my current account with Wikipedia. Bad timing I suppose. (Sadly, I cannot remember my password for my previous account made more than 7-8 years ago and cannot access it again since I've switched email providers). I ignored the wrongful accusations and went along my way to other articles of interest as I am not interested in being accused or being in arguments where I have to defend my own virtues since I am NOT a sock puppet. I had read the Andrews talk page notes and at one time supported an edit made to add information to her article but I did not feel my voice was welcomed in the discussions and as mentioned, I moved on. I was not interested in being wrongfully accused just because I made a suggestion. I've been on Wikipedia for a long time (as a reader and as an editor) and will admit that I've never felt such animosity. Most Wikipedia authors have an openness to listen particularly to people who knew the person in real life. I have noticed there has been excessive requests for sources and "burden of proof" for the Andrews article. While citation is always great and highly encouraged for any article, we need to realize that there are times there's information that cannot be found in print/online from "reputable" sources but yet they did occur and real life fans or friends can attest or even 'swear' to it that it did occur and such information is mentioned in blogs, social media, seen on YouTube, etc. Many articles written for other living and deceased entertainers have not required as much citation requests as the Andrews article for listing their body of work. And, arguably many of these other entertainers (including ones I have help edit like Michael Miu, Tony Leung Chiu-Wai, Maggie Cheung) are far more internationally or nationally/regionally famous or have had a body of work more comprehensive than Andrews had and if anything these other entertainers' articles would probably require more source citation. I cannot but observe that the Andrews article has become an unnecessary battleground because of some over-zealous editors who ironically probably are not even familiar with Andrews' work but are merely trying to be "source cops" insisting for sources that may never satisfy their requirements because it's not from the NY Times, Washington Post, TIME, etc. Andrews was a great social influence within the LGBT community in TX and nation-wide and MANY people can attest to this. She held many pageant titles (just about everyone who knew of her work knows of this fact), had worked on a movie, music videos, theater but much of her work isn't covered by any large mainstream media outlets as is often the case with LGBT performers. A lot of her work was covered by smaller LGBT blogs or publications (as is often the case with LGBT performers). For what it's worth, I feel the Andrews article should be as comprehensive as possible to include her body of work to as much as we can know or find out about as this is already done for other entertainers with such excessive source citation. This is NOT an article on scientific or medical information that we are talking about here where yes you definitely need to comprehensively source the information. We are discussing about the body of work (to be listed) by an entertainer who has deceased. The "standard" has already been set on other Wikipedia articles for MANY other entertainers where their body of work (film, stage, music, videos) have not required lengthy source citation before any of such work can be listed. If that were the case, then many of these entertainers' Wikipedia article would not ever be complete and what good would the article be for any reader who comes by to read about the entertainer if a great deal about their work isn't even mentioned. Is Wikipedia striving to be an information source or not? Isn't this the basic argument for Wikipedia and its differentiation from Encyclopedia Britannica where someone like Andrews wouldn't ever even be mentioned. If there is such request for sources and citations to such nth degree for the Andrews article, then ALL the other articles for entertainers need to undergo the SAME level of scrutiny and I suspect if you did that there'd be so much uproar from those articles' editors. I can only imagine the firestorm that would ensue if I were to try to delete off all of Michael Miu's or Tony Leung Chiu-Wai's or Maggie Cheung's body of work from back when they were more very obscure actors claiming there are no sources cited, and hence no "proof" they were in such movies when any fan of theirs knows they did play a part i such movies even if they were an extra. Take a look at Michael Miu's and Tony Leung Chiu-Wai's filmography listing. Most to none of the listed titles of films they were in are even sourced to anything. Should we delete all of it? If we are saying we should delete all of Andrews' work that isn't cited, then the same needs to be done for Michael Miu's, Tony Leung's and the list goes on. And in regards to citation sources - we'll all be looping around this "forever" if we needed to debate this because for many staunch academics, even mainstream newspapers aren't good enough because they feel only scholarly journals that are well researched can ever be used. Thank you for listening. Braveyoda (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Braveyoda that we need to review other entertainers' articles and look at the "standard" that has been set. I'm not saying that it's bad to raise the bar on any article but it is ridiculous to raise it so high to where no information can even be mentioned about Andrews when all the other entertainers' articles do not follow the same standards. Arguably, if there were a need for standards for articles, then the Andrews article would not be a good candidate for it. The continuous argument on the Andrews article is the sources cited aren't major newspapers or substantial enough or that it is based on social media. But even on this, Wikipedia has guidance found at WP:SOCIALMEDIA. As Braveyoda mentions, many entertainers' Wikipedia articles do not list all the sources for a list of the films/songs/plays they've participated in. It's just listed in a data table chronologically as part of their filmography or theatrical work. Why can't the same be given to the Andrews article? She did appear in 3 theatrical plays - all of which have been mentioned by newspapers and the locations of the plays are also mentioned. Andrews also appeared in talk shows (Tyra Banks and Maury). The actual episode number and season can also be verified by visual identification of Andrews in the actual segment and if you watch the clips, you can even hear Tyra Banks or Maury Povich call Andrews out by name, with her name displayed when she appears in the scene. I read that Wikipedia would prefer to not link to a YouTube clip and says that instead, the actual episode/segment/studio/air dates should be cited instead. I did that exactly according to Wikipedia's guidance but everything still got deleted. I'm seeking some sanity and logic here for all this. Most of the Andrews information I'd published met the 5 points listed here: WP:ABOUTSELF / WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Lightspeedx (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick FYI, as per the results of the following investigation User:Braveyoda has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of User:Lightspeedx. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		Thanks for jumping right in and helping us out. Have your first barnstar as a token of WP's appreciation. Go Phightins! 22:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Howicus (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Howicus. You have new messages at Turdas's talk page.
Message added 16:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hi, i noticed that you removed the image i previously restored, however, i have a hard time finding the reason you give for it's removal to make sense, you say that it is original research because the ethnicy of the colombian people is not stated (i assume that you are talking of an in-image statement because it is stated in it's footnote that is an image of mestizos from Colombia), now, here is why it don't makes sense:

If you go to any article on wikipedia, such as Whale or Grizzly bear you will found plenty of images that would be considered "original research" by your standards, I say this to you in the best manner possible and I hope you think about it a change your way of viewing image-related issues. Angelicality (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here, I'm going to try to explain my reasoning. In the case of Whales and Grizzly bears, there exist many reliable sources that say "Here is what a whale/grizzly bear looks like, and here is a photo." But unlike animal species, human ethnic groups are much harder to classify. Appropriate photos for the Mestizo article include, among others, the pictures of Porfirio Diaz and Manuel Quezon that are already there. Both of these men have articles, and both of those articles say that they were Mestizo, and use references to support those claims. On the other hand, there are no sources that say "the people in this crowd are largely Mestizos," and adding the photo based on how they look would be original research. I hope I've made my reasoning clearer now. Howicus (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a moment, what do you think the people on the pic looks like then? Angelicality (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. My point is that what we think the people look like is too subjective to use as a criteria for including the image. Howicus (talk) 04:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for watching out for my user and user talk page and reverting vandalism. I have been offline for almost an entire day so it would have sat there. It is amazing that some vandals are so jaded that they will vandalize the user pages of anyone who catches them. Donner60 (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howicus, thank you for the barnstar. I have to admit that I haven't always been that patient. I'm trying.Iss246 (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DVdm. I would like to discuss edits with Mrm7171 but it is strange that he/she declines to discuss.Iss246 (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite indeed. You did your utter best trying to discuss, but this seems not to work. A different approach is clearly called for here. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Howicus. I've run out of patience with Mrm7171.

I have a complaint about Mrm7171. He plays a double game. I try to discuss edits with him on his talk page. Then he goes ahead and makes edits without discussing them. And finally writes:

(diff | hist) . . m Occupational health psychology‎; 02:54 . . (+57)‎ . . ‎Mrm7171 (talk | contribs)‎ (Just made a couple of very minor additions. Did not delete or undo anyone elses edits. Please discuss with me on my talk page to come to consensus.Thanks)

(diff | hist) . . m Occupational health psychology‎; 02:51 . . (+9)‎ . . ‎Mrm7171 (talk | contribs)‎ (One word added. No deletion of any other editors work made out of respect. We need to discuss. Please use my talk page. Please don't just remove. Thanks)

(diff | hist) . . m Occupational health psychology‎; 02:50 . . (+25)‎ . . ‎Mrm7171 (talk | contribs)‎ (Please discuss on my talk page iss246 rather than undo my minor edit or engage in edit war. Please don't iss246. It's better to discuss than you delete. thanks)

Meanwhile, he includes text that occupational health psychology is a subfield of i/o psychology when I have labored on his talk page to explain that OHP is not a subfield of i/o psychology just as i/o psychology is not a subfield of social psychology and psychometrics or that health psychology is not a subfield of clinical psychology. I view what he has done as bad faith. This includes his groveling, with purposeful bad grammar, about how he has been picked on on May 26, 2013:

[[Category:{{unblock| Thats cool. I'm still very unclear abvout talk page and feel administrator may have acted a liottle demeaning. Not sure if new users have difficulty that experienced users should act sartcastically or bullying toieard new experienced userts like myself? I gfeel pretty bullied. Sorry but just a new inexperioenced user. ]]

[[Category:[[Category:{{unblock| Thats okay will cop it. and wait fdor the 48 hourts. Feel pretty bullied and didn't need sarcasm or demeaning me by experienced wikipedia user. Could hjabe treated he with more respect. I'm just not sure how it all works yet. Wonderion g why kuru was so demeaning, demoralising of new user inexperien ced like myself. Didnbt need to be put down or fdinger in my chest so much kuyru, just a new user. inexperienced could have been a little more cool about it all though kuriu, instead of tryting tgo put me down so basdly and disreszpect me so badly.....]]

I've been patient with him. I find him full of bad faith. This sing-song of "let's discuss" and then he goes ahead and makes a bold move without sources that OHP is a subfield of i/o psychology. I think he should be barred from Wikipedia for his double-talk.Iss246 (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you feel is nessesary, I'm really only marginally involved with this. Frankly, seeing how combative Mrm7171 is, I don't think he's here to build an encyclopedia Howicus (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I,Alice,am a princess OF THE BLOOD ROYAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice March (talk • contribs) 15:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I threatened to sue... I am Princess. You don't mess with a real royal! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.201.69 (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it, thanks. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was wondering...

The material was changed because the previous version was factually wrong. Cabeza de Vaca was shipwrecked on the Florida coast near Tampa, not the Sonora coast. I find no evidence that the ship was named "Florida." Take a look at the Wikipedia's Cabeza de Vaca page or any standard history (such as David Weber's "The Spanish Frontier in North America") if you have doubts about this.

Rhyme4 (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry to bother you..by the way i have some questions. I need to complete the page about Εντουαρντ Ραιτ for my school. So please do not delete it. I am new to this so i might have made some mistakes. Please let me know how i can fix this. --Maria z90 (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the article Έντουαρντ Ράιτ is that it already exists on Wikipedia, at Edward Wright (mathematician). We can't have two articles about the same thing on Wikipedia. However, I notice that the Greek Wikipedia here [2] has no article called Έντουαρντ Ράιτ, so if you have to write the article in Greek, you could do that there. Howicus (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw more activity and went to request a block, but I saw you'd already done it! High five! Your justice was restrained, but swift when appropriate. Qwerty0 (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks! That could be a superhero's tag line. "Justice is restrained, but swift where appropriate" *Flies away, roll credits*. Howicus (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Howicus. You have new messages at Arctic Kangaroo's talk page.
Message added 23:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 23:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Howicus. You have new messages at Arctic Kangaroo's talk page.
Message added 23:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 23:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Howicus. You have new messages at Arctic Kangaroo's talk page.
Message added 00:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 00:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entry 'Jim O'Rear' is showing indications of being a vanity page and the site of a potential edit war. My talk page entry was actually altered, perhaps in good faith, but I would appreciate the assistance of an experienced editor in addressing some potential issues regarding this entry. Thank you (Sellpink (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, I was just about to go to bed, sorry. Maybe I can help in the morning. Howicus (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hello Howicus - I noticed that you removed the full text links I had added to The Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath. I did not know that the full text was available on Wikisource, so thank you. But Wikisource only has the text in HTML, would it be useful to keep a link to the EPUB versions for the convenience of ebook reader users? Straje (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...frankly, that's a bit beyond my knowledge. Try WP:EL/N, the External links noticeboard. Howicus (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Howicus. You have new messages at Nathan2055's talk page.
Message added 20:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		User:QunoxTxa - good call, there were 43 hoax pages to delete!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I need to catch a game with the Armenian National Football team in it, and look for the 43 identical midfielders :) Howicus (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I moved the Land of Opportunity film page to my sandbox. How do I now request that it be created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameliasenter (talk • contribs) 20:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the Molly Moccasins page

Hi,

I was wondering if you could give me an example of a reliable source. I've tried posting two pages now and they've both been denied for this reason. Thanks in advance for your help! (added originally to my first archive in error by User talk:Mcneely12345) Howicus (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no concrete information about contents of Toffler's book in the article "Future Shock". Therefore I decided to create separate article about this book with a statement of the contents of this book. Need I transfer contents of my article to the article "Future Shock"? Valery Staricov (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Howicus. You have new messages at TransporterMan's talk page.
Message added 17:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

TransporterMan (TALK) 17:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. What happened was I deleted that in an Afd, then redirected the page to another article. Then a new user User:MusicBuzzer changed it from a redirect to an article. I've changed it back to a redirect and protected it so this doesn't happen again. MusicBuzzer also pasted the whole article into Leonard Horowitz, I've reverted him there too. Do you think you could leave him a note about recreating deleted articles, etc.? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Left him a note. Howicus (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need to bring my friend back to Wiki. And this is the only way to do it.--Linamorse (talk) 04:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user who is intent that he is right is doing my head in!  — AARON • ^TALK 22:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I agree with that user in one respect: you're making too big of a deal about this. Just wait, and think of what the closing admin will see: a WP:TOOSOON article being defended by a new user with no understanding of policy, while several editors who've been here a while advocate for deletion. Just stop responding: I don't think the article is going to be kept just based on the actions of that one user. Howicus (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Pertaining to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Iowa_State_University_College_of_Agriculture_and_Life_Sciences

I had a couple questions:

First, you suggested the reference be outside the college. It is a book, which was published and is reproduced on the university web site.

I followed the example of other colleges linked to the university Wikipedia page and those reference the histories of the colleges on their web sites.

Thanks,

EdEdaisu (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said sources, plural. Just one book isn't enough to source an article. Howicus (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I misunderstood your message, but yes I think it's weird to call it aviation-themed, even if you're flying a spaceship. Aviation is a pretty broad thing and entails many things centered around air craft. It's a bit like calling the film Scarfaced "gun-themed". The only thing you're doing in Starfox which relates to aviation is flying in them to fight. NothingInTheSun (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Civility Barnstar
		Thanks; your civility and unwillingness to contribute to drama, while still thinking and attempting to work with others, greatly impressed me. I had to think about it, and I would not be staying, even with the kindness of a few other editors, but for seeing how sanely one individual can act under the circumstances. AfadsBad (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks. That really makes me feel good about editing, I mean it. Howicus (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the like button? Keep it up, please. --AfadsBad (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can "thank" people for edits, like I just did for your last edit here. Howicus (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you do that. Someone else thanked for me editing a plant article. Where do you do this? --AfadsBad (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look in the revision history, it's right next to "undo." Howicus (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

regarding your question of the deletion of the article for D. Harold McNamara or Delbert H. McNamara - please delete the article under the name "Delbert H. McNamara". I created a new article under the name "D. Harold McNamara" since this is how he is most commonly referred to in other Wikipedia articles and to avoid confusion with his father, Delbert McNamara.

Thanks T8yq2B96 — Preceding unsigned comment added by T8yq2B96 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tag on D. Harold McNamara has been removed. I'm not an admin, so I can't delete the other page myself, but an admin will get to it eventually. Howicus (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your very quick feedback on my article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Eric_A._Spiegel

However, I'm still confused re: inline citations. Wkik provides four examples of when you need to use them:

• Direct quotations Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Any statement that has been challenged
• Any statement that you believe is likely to be challenged.
• Contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons

I don't see where any of those apply to my submission. Is there something else I am doing wrong? Can you point out to me what you think should be cited? I'm happy to make the change, but I'm looking at what I've written and I don't see any direct quotes, challenging statements or contentious material that fits the guidelines. Thanks for your help. I'm new at this so if there's someplace else I should turn, please let me know. CRHassettVA4 (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think "contentious material" is defined very broadly for a biography of a living person. For example, use a citation for his job as CEO of Siemens USA. Use another to support Siemens USA as "the company's largest market." Another citation for the data on Siemens USA. Basically, anything that someone could read and say "prove it" needs a citation. Howicus (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't think that was a problem--the problem was copyvio (which I rewrote). A person's official CV or bio at a major company or organization is a perfectly good source for this, and I have almost always used it for the basic bio for the 7 years I have been rewriting them here as an administrator. (Their error rate for positive statement has been about 1/500; the omission of things that should be there is much more common--often neutral things, like where a person was born, or a full middle name.). If there is an award, I try to source it externally.--not that these are in error either, but it shows the significance of the award. There's not much point is using 3rd party sources for such material, Almost invariably the third party sources will have actually deeb derived from exactly the same place as the official CV. I do add a newspaper report of an appointment sometimes, but it too is always written by the newspaper from the company;s press release. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG. He's been around a lot longer than I have, listen to him. I have no idea what I'm saying half the time. Howicus (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i stumbled upon an article your working on creating and noticed in an edit summary you questioned when it is appropriate to use the Action of (insert date) naming convention for naval battle article titles. The convention should be used whenever a naval action has occurred that has no name accorded to it in published works. The number of ships is irrelevant in regards to use of the convention. For example the action described in featured article Action of 1 January 1800 had some 19 vessels engaged. For unnamed single ship actions there are two conventions currently in use the Action of (insert date) and (insert name of victor ship) vs. (insert name of defeated ship).XavierGreen (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, see I was basing my title on the WWII articles, where all the action articles I had read involved one or two ships per side. A couple more questions: is it acceptable to have a range for the action title, for example Action of 12-13 May 1942? (There's a bit of date confusion, not sure if this will be needed, just though I'd ask). Also, how did you stumble across my draft? Howicus (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can put a date range in the Action of title format, for example the Action of 12–17 January 1640. I stumbled across your draft after looking at your edit history which i looked at after seeing you edited the Atlantic campaign campaign-box. If you ever have any other questions you can always shoot me a message or post on the WikiProject Military History talkpage here.XavierGreen (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for catching it. I've protected against re-creation and given a final warning. DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

look ill try to make you understand you says "Ok, I'll try one more time. Everything on Wikipedia must be sourced to reliable, independent sources: see WP:IRS or WP:SOURCES for more info there. Amazon.com is not a reliable source, because pretty much anyone can sell something there. Now, in one of your posts you mentioned [1], which is a slightly better source in this case. So, here's my suggestion: take a look at the referencing guide for beginners, and edit the article again, this time just using the one source. A few things, though. Vandalism has a very narrow definition on Wikipedia, and what GSK and I were doing does not constitute vandalism. Second, there is no "kliq" of editors running the The Sims 3 page. Before today, I had not edited the Sims 3 page, nor had I ever edited the same page as GSK. I hope my advice helps, and I look forward to seeing you contribute positively to Wikipedia. Howicus (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC).' yet if you look carfully there was a reference 38 pointing to ea page , and origin (wish is owned by ea them self so those 2 are relliable . so removing factual information that is real , just cause we arent member of a Kliq is a vadalims. ok other wise my addition wouldn't had been removed with out reason for several time so im not a vadalist i m the victime of gsk's and yours vadalism. who cant allowed non member of your kliq to post factual information with proof and other who are probably member of your kliq can post information with out proof what so ever. so dont pretend there is no kliq on wikipedia when there is one .

please.   and for your information if i knew how to report the 2 vadalist that you and gsk are  i would had done it long time ago.
sing Lboken

I appreciate that you tried to source the information, but the reference was badly formatted, and you had added another reference to the top of the page. Just use the EA link and nothing else as a source, and I (at least) would be fine with your addition. Also, vandals are reported at WP:AIV, but as I said before, the edits GSK and I did are not vandalism as defined by Wikipedia. Howicus (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Delaware-William & Mary rivalry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. Howicus (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my comments? --Bootle Bridge (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because they seemed inappropriate, and did not contain a suggestion for a change to the article. Howicus (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've noticed it's been a while since you've been active at DRN, and we could really use your help! DRN is going to undergo some changes soon, so it'd really be great if our backlog is cleared before the start of August and we have as many people on board to help with the changes (they include a move to subpages and the creation of a rotating "co-ordinator" role to help manage things day-to-day. Hope to see you soon! Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind! Howicus (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My page did not attack, threaten, or disparage any subject. It was not even about a person, so how can it be an attack page? What aspects of my article was offensive? You could not have read the whole article in 2 mins. --Osserbrune-Plane (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article first described "Sexual Bolshevism" as a very negative thing, and then attacked people by applying this term to them. Howicus (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also responded at Osserbrune-Plane's talk page - my read was much the same, which is why I deleted the article in the first place. Further, I advised Osserbrune-Plane to go to WP:DRV if he is unsatisfied with my response. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it's okay. I am happy with your response and I am reforming the article. Thanks. --Osserbrune-Plane (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	I have decided that helping me with that ref is worth a barnstar. Thanks! Matty.007 18:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Howicus (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me with the Matmon Internet page, it seems a user moved it from my subpage to add it to its own article but when I go to the article the content is gone. I will go back and reference everything but I can't reference anything if the content is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliottgbrown (talk • contribs) 19:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The content is no longer at Matmon Internet, but it's still at User:Elliottgbrown/Matmon Internet. You can work on it there. Howicus (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't move the content to the main space, I just created a user page for Elliot because when you clicked on his username it was redirected to the subpage. The content is still there. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 19:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Howicus for reverting the vandalism. Shame one cannot it seems protect one's own pages. I reverted another anonymous vandalism just now, my website deleted. As you will note, two pages in my "user sandbox" were deleted last year and I'm not going to tell the true story here because I don't want to create problems for you. I saved the pages in question only by copying them onto my own MediaWiki: sadly, the sheer nastiness wrongness and unfairness of what happened here made me simply draw back from Wikipedia altogether. Lucy Skywalker (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean my signature blinks how does it blink? Welcometothenewmillennium 22:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears and disappears. Come on, "text-decoration:blink" is right there in your signature. Howicus (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Howicus. You recently applied for a Wikimedia IRC cloak, but it looks like you forgot to register your nickname first. Could you please log on to IRC and do:

/msg NickServ REGISTER <password> <email>

where <password> is a password of your choice and <email> is your e-mail address? After you do that, please follow the instructions that are e-mailed to you to confirm your e-mail address. When you're done with that, I just need you to confirm your cloak request:

/msg MemoServ send wmfgc IRC cloak request

After you finish all of that, I'd be happy to get you a cloak. :-) If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my Meta talk page. Barras ^talk 15:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so I did do something wrong...I was beginning to suspect. Howicus (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Memo sent...hopefully I did it right this time. Howicus (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! Margaretwmiller (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kamapitha. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Howicus. You have new messages at LFaraone's talk page.
Message added 16:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

LFaraone 16:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on the AFC: Ali Siddiq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ali_Siddiq. I have made the changes which you recommended. I hope the new article is pleasing to you and the Wikipedia community.

TheBrodenFirm (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recently the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard underwent some changes in how it operates. Part of the change involved a new list of volunteers with a bit of information about the people behind the names.

You are listed as a volunteer at DRN currently, to update your profile is simple, just click here. Thanks, Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they deleted another image I made lol. This is just the old one that is outdated, but they won't remove it for some reason. I'm still dumbfounded over how nothing is done about the many other teams' hi-res pictures, but every time I redo this one, it is removed up to a day subsequent to putting it up. This time I was told: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Azrail_Kabir

I'm afraid of trying again lest I'd be blocked, removed or banned. Azrail Kabir (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry to hear that. Actually, I was talking about the team colors in the infobox. I didn't know about your other picture troubles. Howicus (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes the kits, I managed to figure them out fortunately. =) Azrail Kabir (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ashkenazi Jews. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As old as that case is, it really either needs to move along or be closed, especially since it's one of the old subpaged cases that don't work with the bots correctly. I proposed to close it but Robertiki has, in effect, objected. Since you're the lead volunteer on that case, it's your call. I'm going to extend it for another 24 hours; if you want to keep it alive please say as much at the case page and I'll withdraw my closing notice. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nicki Minaj discography. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read your letter and thank you very much for the advise. PS.on which page did you see my edit, talk, ect... — Preceding unsigned comment added by FockeWulf FW 190 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I saw one of your edits via the page of contributions for new users here [3], and that page then had a link to your talk page. Hope you don't mind. Howicus (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)FockeWulf FW 190FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC) thank you for the nice reply, and I don't mind. Thank You for such a speedy and nice reply.[reply]

Hey, saw that we both edited this AfC at the same time. I hesitate to call it a hoax since I can't rule out that the newspaper sources exist, but I'm a little worried that this guy might be a hoax article. I can't find a single mention about this guy anywhere on the internet other than mirrors of this article. For someone who was supposed to be a notorious killer, that's somewhat suspicious. Either he's decidedly non-notable or this was someone trying to add a hoax article on Wikipedia. The main thing that keeps me from thinking that they're trying to post a hoax is that they have made some good faith edits in the past. I just wanted to let you know so (if you want) you can keep an eye on the article just in case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's strange...like a BLP1E from 115 years ago. My best guess is that Gliesian lives in or near Coalburg, Ohio. Howicus (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm the one (Robert) who created the article. It is not a hoax. Discovery of Angelo came about through genealogy research... actually someone reached out to me, thinking I was related to him... I am not. I do believe however, that his combined elevated notoriety from his criminal activities, trial(s) and stay in prison all present him as a strong candidate to have his own Wikipedia entry. That is each aspect of his life was unique and interesting in it's own ways. I do not have a lot of time to strengthen the article right now, but as it matures and evolves over time, more and more interesting facts about the character will be presented. Please help in aiding me with refining the article so it can be accepted into Wikipedia, so the discoveries that we have gathered can be persisted and not lost over time.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Things are going to be pretty busy for me for a little while. I might not be on Wikipedia very often, and I almost certainly won't be on IRC for a couple days. Howicus (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mariah Carey. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 18:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Carlos Latuff. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that comment! I didn't know at the time, so that's really helpful. Welcome to Wikipedia! Hutchisojl (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2013 (PST)

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

Is "Recognised" suitable to describe English on the info-box in regards to this Section 2 of Article 82 on the Country's Constitution?

Article 82

Section 2 - An official version in the English language shall be provided of anything which, by this Constitution or by any written law or by the Standing Orders, is required to be printed or in writing, and such version shall, in addition to the official Malay version, be accepted as an authentic text. Alevero987 (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think just saying "recognized" sums up the use of English in Brunei well enough. The way it is now looks good to me... Howicus (Did I mess up?) 14:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]