Archive 1

Hello. Thanks for your visiting. I am sorry for this mistake. I could not find any English sources yet. So I can just translate those persian sources to English. Good lock. --شهریار (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Æk, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Queen I-Asia has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary '(remove prod - prod was contested on the talk page)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to take part in the article's current AfD. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Ok, It's My Problem for creating this article. But i just want to know, how are you suppose to track down the page, adding the tag on the page and how are you suppose to type a long text on my page and how are you suppose to do it within a minute. Áqúáďêîâŝ Σ 10:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

For often-repeated messages, Wikipedia has templates that editors (like me) can use to cut down on typing. — æk^Talk 10:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've removed the prod notice from Hilliard state school. Schools in general are not subject to the notability criteria, especially government operated ones. -Reconsider! 11:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? Do you have a link to a Wikipedia policy/guideline that supports that view? I find that this and footnote 8 at WP:N appear to contradict it, though admittedly the first is not an official document and the second is indirectly related. But I'd be quite surprised to hear that there is a class of articles on Wikipedia that are not subject to WP:N. — æk^Talk 12:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand that English might not be your first language. Please read up on the use of have versus has before you make inappropriate edit reversals. [Have vs have got - grammar - central - British Council - LearnEnglish]

The use of has in this case is in the singular not plural. The wording as published is a direct copy from the English version of Ukraine's Constitution

Thanks. The subject is the candidate in the singular. Thanks for picking up the typing mistake on State.

Dear MiszaBot, here is a time-stamp so you can archive: — æk^Talk 19:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you give it another look please, it had more sources earlier but people keep coming by and deleting them. I guess the main issue is making sure that these sources are reliable, which I try do my best at. A few of the sources are a bit spammy but they were written by "experts", my other sources are from mainly books which are secondary sources. I understand if your opinion does not change but, if you have the time to look again and provide me with an opinion that would be much appreciated. Thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 16:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about this one specifically? That calls it a, "common but little publicized condition known as nosocomephobia" and then goes on to describe why people should and shouldn't have this fear. -Marcusmax(speak) 18:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the work you've done to add references to the article. However, I still don't think any of the reliable references establish notability of the term. The Nixon info is potentially interesting, but can be merged with his article. My opinion at the AfD stands. — æk^Talk

Thank you for being so civil, any thoughts on maybe transwiki to wiktionary? -Marcusmax(speak) 23:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

An excellent idea. I'll add it to my comments at the AFD. — æk^Talk 00:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean to strike earlier comment. Thank you. Houstonbuildings (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You tagged Po Leung Kuk Choi Kai Yau School for speedy deletion. I removed the tag, since schools are not eligible for deletion under csd-a7. In general, secondary schools are kept, as long as they can be verified; elementary and middle schools are usually merged to their school district or locality. -- Eastmain (talk) 11:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I was operating under the assumption that a school qualified as an "organization" under the criteria for A7. (And the pictures of children on the school website make it fairly clear that it is an elementary or middle school.) Thanks for correcting me, though. — æk^Talk 17:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You've been closing requested moves without implementing the decision that you lodge as closure. Why is that? 76.66.194.220 (talk) 06:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I am waiting on a redirect to be deleted so that I can move the page over it. This should normally go through quite quickly, but I made a mistake and am talking it over with an admin. See this user talk thread. It'll get done in a day or so, don't worry. — æk^Talk 06:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies; I guess that, for some reason, I didn't see the reason that you were asking for deletion and or misread it or something, because I know I had it in my head that you were asking for deletion because it was an unlikely redirect. Nyttend (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Nyttend, for fixing it up. I've gone through the "What Links Here" and made sure that there weren't any links disturbed by the move. One final question: Talk:Tennyson is currently a redirect to Talk:Tennyson (disambiguation), while the article Tennyson redirects to Alfred, Lord Tennyson. I'm sure that Talk:Tennyson should either be deleted or made a redirect to Talk:Alfred, Lord Tennyson, but I'm not sure which. — æk^Talk 19:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've altered the talk page redirect as above. All fixed. — æk^Talk 23:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Æk, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Mohammad Mossadegh - a page you tagged - because: I'd like to see some consensus on the spelling before I delete this; I will revert cut-and-paste move, though. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I filed the deletion request to get the cut and paste out of the page history (to prevent anyone from reverting back to it), but on reflection maybe that isn't such a good idea. Thanks. — æk^Talk 07:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

And I've opened another WP:RM at the talk page to gather consensus on the name. — æk^Talk 07:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Æk, thank you for your message. I believe that you are not fully aware of a number of aspects regarding my "moving" of the above-mentioned entry through copying-and-pasting. The problem was that the page to be moved to had already existed as a "Redirect" page, so that "move" did not work. I therefore filed a "move" request, which was not responded to and it was after this that I did what I did (somehow the work by User:Khoikhoi, see here here, on the page at issue --- on my request, as can be seen here ---, has left no trace of my "move" request on the talk page of Mohammad Mosaddegh). I was well aware of problems associated with "moving" by cutting-and-pasting (above all, that the "history" of the entry would not be properly moved), as attested by my discussions here.

To summarise, I believe that I have acted fully in accordance with the rules governing editing Wikipedia entries. The entire problem would have been avoided if the request that I had lodged had been responded to as expected (please consider the background that there was already a consensus between me and User:Natty4bumpo regarding the name change and that the "move" had been carried out to a name that did not coincide with the name that I and User:Natty4bumpo had agreed upon --- while "MohammEd" had correctly been changed into "MohammAd", the incorrect "ss", in "Mossaddegh", had remained (I wrote about this to User:Natty4bumpo, here). With kind regards, --BF 11:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC).

BF, here is the sequence of events as I see them from the talk page and relevant move logs:

• Article is at title Mohammed Mosaddeq originally.
• User:Natty4bumpo (Chuck Hamilton) filed a request for move to Mohammad Mossadegh.
• You and him come to an agreement to move the page to Mohammad Mosaddegh.
• The original move is done incorrectly, landing the page at Mohammad Mossaddegh.
• You file another requested move to Mohammad Mosaddegh, which is already a redirect (move needs administrator to carry it out).
• That request is declined by an admin; you do a copy/paste move, resulting in a content fork (a copy of the page is left at two different titles).

There are two issues that I see with this sequence of events.

1. Copy/paste moves are never appropriate
2. The discussion between you and Chuck Hamilton does not constitute a consensus. Specifically, it is lacking in arguments from reliable sources germane to the naming conventions. My determination of lack of consensus is echoed by Malik Shabazz above.

I have filed a new request for move in order to try to determine what the consensus for the article name should be. The earlier move requests were ill-formed and/or confusing, so I elected to open a new one to discuss the two competing variants as I understand them from the discussion. Feel free to present an argument from reliable sources at the requested move page that your proposed transliteration is correct. In doing so, you might find WP:UE and WP:EN useful. — æk^Talk 04:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Æk, I concur with all your above observations (they are all accurate representations of the reality), except this one: "That request is declined by an admin". The request for move was plainly ignored; I am not aware of any response from the admin from which I could possibly have deduced that my request had been declined. In other words, by no stretch of imagination was I trying to impose my will on the admin; Malik Shabazz simply never informed me about the reason for ignoring my request (no doubt, he can have had many reasons for ignoring my request, but how could I have known about them?). As I have explained earlier, and correctly reflected in your above assessment, the agreement between I and User:Natty4bumpo (whether this "agrrement" counts in your book as a "consensus" or not, is a different matter altogether) was a change from "MohammEd Mosaddeq" (please note the correct "Mosaddeq") into "MohammAd Mosaddeq", or preferably "MohammAd MosaddeGH". To my utter surprise, what we got was "Mohammad MoSSaDDeGH", for which no "consensus", none whatsoever, had ever existed! This, coupled with my request for "move" being utterly ignored, was the basis for my change; as you can verify, there is a space of several days between the time I lodged my request and the time at which I effected the change by using cut-and-paste (remarkably, I am as yet nowhere, after having spent my precious time for over 10 days on an issue that to my best judgement needs no discussion --- "Mosaddegh" is either "Mosaddegh" or is not, why so unnecessarily taxing my time? --- I have a life outside the Wikipedia pages and, importantly, I cannot conceive of any reason why I should have wanted to insist in a spelling that were wrong; even ignoring these facts, who ever had asked for "MoSSaDDeGH"? Why people do not own up to their mistakes, and instead try to obfuscate the issue by all kinds of irrelevant issues?). Incidentally, Malik Shabazz has left a comment on the talk page of Mohammad Mosaddegh, to which I have responded; you might like to visit the page. Kind regards, --BF 15:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Hello. I did a little research and left a note on the article's Talk page. You're right: I had no idea the can of worms I was opening when I declined the speedy deletion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you, that's why it didn't work ;-) Have fixed it.

(There ought to be some sort of warning - using the wrong template obviously does not work correctly, but the user is not pointed to the correct procedure. E.g. like how it is done on Commons, when you use the "move" template at a file to be renamed. Perhaps you know how to fix it.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion...I've started working on something to do what you've recommended. This is my first foray into template programming, but it's been fun so far. — æk^Talk 07:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Siddharth JAIN. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siddharth JAIN. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

iBen^discuss 03:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just closed your AFD on Molly Conlin, as you didn't actually propose that the article be deleted. (I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish with the nomination...maybe there is a really good reason for it I just missed?) Just dropping you a note to let you know what I've done. — æk^Talk 05:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Could please you reopen it? Another editor thought the article should be deleted. - Eastmain (talk) 05:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Was that editor an IP? If so, then you should at least copy his/her rationale into the top of the AFD...if not, s/he can open an AFD him/herself. There is no point placing an AFD where the nominator advocates for keep – it is confusing, and the people commenting have no idea why the article was nominated. — æk^Talk 05:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Æk. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of 2009 Espoo shooting, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This is the existing article - created before Sello Shooting. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 10:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear admin i did do a page for romeo saran as he is an upcoming star who is the youngest deejay with a website solely for remixes in singapore. is that a valid reason or am i doing something wrong. adding on he has worked with artistes in singapore and Kollywood a famous place for indian actors and musicians. he has even worked with oscar nominee AR.Rahman. so please do let me know what i have gone wrng in this article . thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomeoFan (talk • contribs) 20:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see the many guides to writing articles for Wikipedia linked at your talk page. — æk^Talk 20:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I realised before it had gone too far that I'd set the list to include redlinks rather than exclude them. NtheP (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I realized that it had been some minutes since your last edit when I left that message, but I wasn't sure if you had realized/stopped or were just taking a break. Thanks for being conscientious. — æk^Talk 18:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a rather insulting template to slap on the talk page of an experienced Wikipedian. I assume you hadn't realised he's not a newbie. Just as I've assumed that piece of Good Faith, you should also assume Good Faith that there's some reason for Bus Stop posting a rather odd new article - why not just ask him why he did it? --Dweller (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Good on you for reverting, but please be careful when using templates on experienced Wikipedians. It can kick off conflict, which is not a good thing! --Dweller (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this version of the article, I thought it was a hoax (see if it doesn't seem the same to you). I jumped the gun on templating the user, then realized my mistake and reverted with apologies. Mea culpa.

(ec) I'll keep that in mind in the future, thanks. — æk^Talk 15:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have provided a proper edit summary to this reversion. In copyright matters, we cannot assume good faith. The copyright holder must go through the proper release procedures. (OK, I am just trying to use copyvio as a shortcut - to save having to take it to AfD where it will undoubtedly be deleted.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Æk! I don't want to discourage you at all and it's great that you're getting involved in closing requested moves. We need help! Please note the closing instructions: when you moved Gurvansaikhan Mountains to Gurvan Sayhan Uul you didn't fix the double redirect created at Gurvan Sayhan Mountains; in History of the Jews in 20th-century Poland, you didn't remove the {{movereq}} template on the talk page and you didn't fix the category sort key on the project page or for any of the other bundles articles. It becomes second nature after you've done hundreds but at first you have to go through the checklist ("did I check all the images for fair use rationales?; did the talk page move also or was it blocked?" etc.) Also, be careful closing requested moves that have opposition such as at talk:Minor Hockey League (this is not because you aren't smart enough to judge consensus but because such moves sometimes lead to problems with users disputing the closes by non-admins). Arguably that one fit under ""nearly" unanimous discussions" but just keep it in mind.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I notice you've rewritten the closing instructions recently to make them much clearer – I read an old version of that page which didn't have the info about the category sort key on it. I'll have to add that to my "checklist." I usually check for double redirects (I got the Jewish history ones, for example), but I must be spotty because I did miss the one at Gurvan Sayhan Mountains.

As for the {{movereq}} template, I usually remove it from requested moves that are only one page. On the other hand, on multi-page requests I put it in a {{tlx}} template when closing. I do this to preserve the specifics of the request, which can be more confusing with multi-page requests. I see this done sometimes with {{editprotected}} templates after an admin reviews a request, as a way of deactivating the category transclusions of the template but preserving the fact that it was placed on the page. I can stop doing this and just remove the template altogether if this is a problem.

Finally, I usually do leave the contentious requests for admins to deal with. I thought consensus was fairly clear at the hockey league article, despite the opposition expressed, but again if there is a problem I can back off similar discussions in the future. Again, thanks for the note, and thanks for rewriting the closing procedures to make them much clearer. — æk^Talk 03:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You know I didn't even notice you had tlxed the template. That's a really good idea (you could also use tnull), and sorry for missing that and for "fixing" what didn't need to be fixed. No problem with the hockey close. I'm never sure of a newish user's knowledge which is why I mentioned it, but you seem very percipient. Harej and I have been grumbling about the closing instructions forever so I recently got off my ass and spent a lot of time on clarifying them; it was such a mess and it still needs some tweaks such as cleanup considerations for DAB pages (which present problems not covered in normal moves). The thing is that failing to fix double redirect and FURs especially has been a constant problem with closes for a long time so I get sometimes a bit hyper vigilant.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you please adjust your signature -- the block of color around your name obscures the text in the line above it. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. It was working fine in Firefox, but i checked a couple other browsers (Safari, Chrome) and it was covering text there. I've made a new one, which will hopefully not give you (or anyone else) problems. — æk^Talk 04:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, very much better. (I'm using IE, incidentally.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup work, I just broke for supper and when I got back it was all done. A pleasant surprise. Cheers Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am new to creating and editing Wikipedia. I contributed by creating the page about BackupAgent, which you reviewed. You stated that the article lacks of secondary sources. I had already added a dozen external references, so I am not really sure what you mean. I want to create a honest, informational, page, so can you give me some advise about how to improve it? And after revision, who will remove the notability warning? thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madeinholland1986 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am trying to bring WP:WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics back to semi-active status. Toward that end, I have moved all members who have not posted to the project page in the past six months to a section, "Inactive members." If you wish to be active in the project, I hope you will move your name back to the section, "Members." You may also remove your name if you are no longer interested in the project. Thanks, and happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Please forgive the talk page spam. There are new userbox and topicon selections for editors who identify themselves as Wikigryphons; see User:Ling.Nut/Gryphontopicon2 and Template:User wikipedia/Gryphon2. Cheers! • Ling.Nut 02:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Æk/Archive 1! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 10:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Hi I am helping Michael Gerard Redman to update his Wikipedia entry. From the top, one point is that he doesn't regard himself as a 'Politician' (added to his page title for disambiguation). Less than 10% of his career is in that area. So he'd prefer Michael G Redman as the page title. Can you help with that please? Deliberate Conscience (talk) 05:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You placed a notability tag on this article a few years back. Unless you object, I will remove it. Mgrē@sŏn 15:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)