I start stubs of people who died recently. Most of the stubs are Roman Catholic diocesan bishops and members of the various state legislatures of the United States. Of the Roman Catholic diocesan bishops-I notice once I start a stob a bot from one of the foreign language Wikipedias would come in and make note that an article has been done in that language. Therefore, that person is well known/notable in that country may not be too well known/notable in several of the English speaking countries. It was a thought I want to pass along. I hope you are well and Happy New Year!Many thank-RFD (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

5 coffins come back from Afghanistan consequent to the same event and you give the thumbs up for a newly created article about one of them but not another one of them. I would think it would be both or neither given the professions of journalist and teacher/soldier strike me as roughly comparable re notability. Notability is rather more likely to vary with community of origin. The notability of the teacher/soldier is not just debatable, in your view, such that it could go to AfD, it's "speedy delete"? Can it not be allowed that the matter is disputed and could go to community discussion? In Edmonton at least it is the subject you reckon should be speedily deleted that is getting more coverage than the one you think is indisputably notable. Can't say I understand your logic.Bdell555 (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Note to self: George Miok article deleted, must have been good nomination AND logic. WWGB (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

On A Dennis 300 bus EnglishAristocraticFool (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I started an article about Ivan Prenda of the Zadar Diocese. Someone change the spelling so the article I did may have to delete or redirect to the new entry. Sorry about that=Thanks-RFD (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Many thanks- you do good work-RFD (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand your frustration... but I got it (Mathias, Orlando, Park). Not correct, yet a progression of sorts ! Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You really need to step aside and stop editing anything to do with Peter Foster as you are clearly bias. Today you vandalised the confidence tricksters site by removing him from the list of living conmen. That is just plain unreasonable and illogic. Foster was labelled as the world's greatest living conman in a book written in 2004. He appears on the cover of the book by Nigel Blundell. How can you remove him? Why are you so hell bent on vandalising anything to do with the man? Stop now! You are making a complete fool of yourself in the eyes of others.

Troy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.130.92 (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

[1] Peter Foster aka "Richard Shears" aka "Troy", there's only one fool in this pathetic matter (and it isn't me). Please stop writing in the third person, you're as transparent as your phoney schemes. WWGB (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I reminded the anonymous editor of WP:NPA.Autarch (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi WWGB, I've requested a Sockpuppet Investigation of User:Jimcrik7 and his perceived socks based on their actions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunset Nation, which you've been active on. You can view it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimcrik7‎. Cheers, XXX antiuser ^eh? 14:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries - I'd checked the definition of terrorism on the other page and its pretty broad so I wasn't sure whether Darwin should be included. I suppose he was motivated against the one insurance agency rather than politically motivated against insurance in general. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have requested that that article be deleted under a different criterion. Not A7, A10. You provided no other reason than it was previously declined. It is up at ANI if you want to look at it. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 04:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Help! I started about Bishop Rafael Munoz Nunez who died and I may had mispell his name. Lack of a accent over a vowel. He died on February 17. Would you please redirect the article? Thanks-RFD (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like great minds think alike. You've nominated two for CSD and I've the other two up for AfD under WP:NOTADICTIONARY. I've bundled the two you proposed as well but I don't know is it right to add the AfD tag to the article while the CSD is unresolved? NtheP (talk)

Thanks for your edits and comments etc regarding the recent problems with this article. I am not sure, however, that it's correct procedure to archive the recent "discussion" (sic!) on the basis of bickering. I may be wrong about this, however, and would appreciate your clarification of this. I was tempted to revert the archiving but thought it was best to ask you about it first. It's my understanding that comments are only archived when the discussion has become redundant after an established period of time - and not because of incivility or other such problems. Cheers. Afterwriting (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits there: I had included a little too much on Denise, indeed. I corrected one point though: the couple were not actually married when he bought her the ring, it would seem. Thanks also for simplifying the entry in the "deaths in" article. I had inadvertantly placed that in the wrong day and have correct myself there, too, now (19 → 17) --Jubilee♫clipman 02:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was familiar with OR guidelines but I went back and looked at them again. I can't see how the sentence "Bonella's new book Hotel Kerobokan was released in November 2009" could be construed as OR or even be controversial. If the source (#2) is what you are indicating is OR then I can't really see that either, as per WP:COS seems acceptable because it is published in a reliable source(AU Telegraph), but are you implying the creator is the subject even when he/she denies it? - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore I find you a tad bitey with 'ole Gamblor but I don't disagree with your actions (except above). I do think it seems suspicios that a new user spent time looking into OTRS issues and not how to write an article. I'm also wondering how long the CC license notice has been on the website. - Stillwaterising (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you realize that all of the Daddy information was incorporated into the Cesar Millan article? I would agree with keeping the article separate if Daddy had ever had any separate identity away from his owner, e.g., Lassie, but that was never the case with Daddy. IMHO it's probably better within the Millan article. Let me know what you think. Thanks. 842U (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the subject meets the requirements at WP:GNG and warrants a separate article. Bo has no identity separate from the White House but still has a standalone article. If you feel strongly you could try Wikipedia:Proposed mergers but I suspect the doglovers will rise up! Regards, WWGB (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, WWGB. The section you refer to here, WP:GNG, doesn't speak to "separate article" so much as it speaks to "notability". We agree, the notability of Daddy isn't in question -- so much as the rational for separateness. The article on Bo has some of its own distinct issues that Daddy doesn't have: the White House article would be too large if every one of its components was filled out in within the article. The Cesar Millan article is no where as large. The amount of information about Bo is quite large, with 6 of its own subsections, five internal photographs and 36 footnotes. This would burden the White House article. The Daddy updated info, about a quarter the information on Bo, is four short paragraphs, ten references and no internal photos. If you want to go directly to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers we can, but there has been no 'uprising' since Feb 24th when the article was merged. Let me know how you'd like to go further. Thanks again. 842U (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I just don't see a strong argument to merge the article. None of the "good reasons to merge" at Wikipedia:Merging seem to apply here. Yes, there is an overlap, but that is only because you chose to create it by edits. If we agree that Daddy is notable, then why not let the standalone article remain? Where is the harm? WP:NOTPAPER seems relevant here. WWGB (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your monitoring of this article and its various issues. I appreciate the work you do with problematic editors as on this and the Sam the Koala article. I am having my own battles at present with an editor who thinks he can use a potentially slanderous term as factual simply because it is verifible on a prejudiced webpage. What holes do these people crawl out of? Anyway ... Afterwriting (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi WWGB, click on this, and you'll see a member named Mike Clarke whose not listed in the template... might you add in. Best, --Discographer (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! My definitive source for such matters is graehamgoble.com/shows-lrb, which makes no mention of Clarke as a member of LRB. I can therefore only assume that he was a studio musician. IMO, that does not warrant mention on the LRB template. WWGB (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a good source! Best, --Discographer (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi WWGB. Just noticed your renaming of Very long philipics. Shouldn't it be moved to user space instead? As it is, we have a talk page of an empty article and that probably won't be allowed to live for long. Favonian (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The content of the edit was discussion, not article content. WWGB (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly true, but since it's not a discussion about an article called Very long philipics, but rather a disagreement between two editors about some other issue, it should be in user (talk) space. Favonian (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So where do you want to move it? WWGB (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Vlad fedorov/Very long philipics would be my choice. Incidentally, Very long philipics has just been nominated for speedy deletion by another editor, and once it's gone the talk page will follow semi-automatically. Favonian (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done WWGB (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Major General Md. Zia-ur-Rahman, ndc, psc is the new GOC of 11th Infantry Div Bogra previously he was the GOC of ARTDOC see Bangladesh army command structure, there are more changes in Bangladesh army organization. If required talk to me and check for details, informations given about the article Md. Zia-Ur-Rahman is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafiquez (talk • contribs) 17:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi WWGB, Thank you for improving the Troubadour Reunion Tour page. I created the article in February. I appreciate all the details you included. I also really love the picture you put up and the information you put under it. The set list is also great. I like the reviews at the bottom of the page as well.

Thanks, Boeing747a380 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boeing747a380 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I am based in the US. Carole King and James Taylor are doing many concerts in North America, so I'm assuming there are going to be numerous reviews from newspapers and companies over here. They're coming to some large cities such as Los Angeles, Boston, Toronto, New York, and to the San Francisco area, and I'm sure there will be reporters attending those concerts. Unfortunately there haven't been any European dates announced. I don't know how you found all those reviews, too, I could only find a couple. It's great that you posted them onto the article!

It would seem as if you attended one of the concerts! You knew a bit about it! I'm really glad you put up a set list.

And thank you for also creating an article on their new album. Sales for the album appear to be doing well on Amazon.com.

And do you know if Tapestry ever charted in Australia? I can't find any sources saying it did. But I would think it did since when she did her Living Room Tour it was pretty successful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boeing747a380 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged this article for notability concerns and a lack of independent sources. There are hundreds/thousands of people who claim to develop their own martial arts system--almost all of which are just a combination of existing systems. The martial arts project is currently doing an article review (which takes time). If, when this article is reviewed, people feel he and/or his method is notable then the notability tag will be removed. Either way the article could use some independent sources. If you can contribute to the article, that would be great. Papaursa (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Wirtz was an attorney, but that was not what he was most known for. He was a politican and member of a presidential cabinet. There are hundreds of thousands of attorney's out there...we do not list each attorney that passes. I will block access if you continue to edit his addition.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.238.41 (talk • contribs)

YOU will block access. Ha, ha, ha, give me a break Mr Anonymous. WWGB (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello again,

As you seem to know something about herpatology, can you tell me why so many of them seem to be such fanatical eccentrics? I ask this having suffered some recent crap from a user called Mokele - after making a minor style edit - falsely accusing me of vandalism. Any light you can shed on this phenomena will be appreciated. You seem to be the only sane one around! :-) Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello WWGB, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Yuen Wai-hung has been removed. It was removed by Benjwong with the following edit summary '(two other sources are on this page)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Benjwong before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 09:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Nelly Panizza was part of 46 movies. What means notable for you? IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0659541/ Spanish wikipedia article: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelly_Panizza

Let me know, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andres arg (talk • contribs) 23:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right, Taylor isn't a part of a "male ensamble", but that is his vocal type and range. How else would you describe it? Rapier (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I have now nominated this one for deletion at AfD after your speedy deletion was contested. De728631 (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello WWGB. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Shoot boxing Russia to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. GedUK  19:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The reason I alphabetized Frederik van Zyl Slabbert under V is that in the citation he is referred to, without his first name, as van Zyl Slabbert (with a capital V if it's the beginning of a sentence). I have had trouble with van (with a lower-case v, and only in that instance) in the past as the alphabetization with other names has gone both ways, either under V or under whatever follows the "van". Perhaps the citation is wrong (I very much doubt it). That's my motivation. Ed (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

A short lived cruise ship company which tried to compete with the better known and better funded Lurline Company.

One of its three cruise ships was known as the SS Leilani.

Originally a military troop ship in WW-II Leilani was sold, renamed and sold again and renamed again several times before being scrapped in Greece in 1960. In between it was again a troop ship in Korea.

EoGuy (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC) More info at the URL originally listed in the deleted page.

Just a friendly heads up on Dr. Leigh-Davis. Yeah, it smells pretty fishy to me, too, but there's just enough out there that I can't bring myself to speedily delete it. You'll find the AfD here. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi if you find any available images of Charlotte Lindström please put them into the article 2007 hitman case. as she is a model it shouldnt be to difficult. but i dont know,. Thanks.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well guess you should realize that this category tag of Pakistani Shia Muslims doesn't require any particular reference, since its very public that his Mother Benazir Bhutto and his Father Asif Ali Zardari are Shia Muslims. So was his grand father Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and his grand mother Nusrat Bhutto. Now would please revert the category to its last version by me? Regards SyedMANaqvi (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLPCAT. "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question". Now, I cannot find any reference that states Bilawal has publicly self-identified as a Shi'a, so the category is inappropriate. Regards, WWGB (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well thank you for enlightening me with your point of view regarding Wiki WP:BLPCAT criteria and I respect that, but regardless of that fact isn't it strange that despite of Bhuttos being publicly known for adhering Shia faith, yet there is a denial? Guess at some level his religious background should be mentioned, since Wikipedia is all about mentioning facts. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

His religious background is mentioned. His infobox states "Religion: Islam". WWGB (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I worked on the Dixie Chicks articles in 2006-2007, (primarily that of Martie Maguire, though as a new editor then, I added far too much information about the band to her personal article, much of which was later moved to the other articles about the Dixie Chicks. I noticed that you took the time to place a miniaturized photo of both Maguire and Emily Robison. I have some excellent photos of the Court Yard Hounds from more than one source- (I specialise in providing photos to biographies of musicians too)- I placed one on that page, and for each sister, one on their respective articles, but now I wish to ask if you'd mind if we removed the dual photos of the sisters in those separate photos, and perhaps placed this photo there instead which hasn't been used (since the others have already):

. --I just don't like to step on toes, especially when people put effort into creating worthy articles. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

After your revert on The Searchers article, I asked two others to try out the reverted links from their computers, with different browsers and ISPs. Non could reach the apparent Portuguese registered site/domain name www.rickresource.com and the linked references. It might be that www.rickresource.com is down, but you say you can access it so that might appear unlikely, unless outage has been somehow selective. As it might possibly be a problem our end I shall contact other Wikipedia editors to see if they can access this and other links/references in the article. If that link under References does indeed work, there should of course be no need for this superfluous 'quote' below (from an original 06.02.2009 edit) that has been added to the link:

Band founder Mike Pender, "The Band was founded by myself and John McNally. In 1957 John and I went to see the movie "The Searchers" starring John Wayne. I was an ardent Western Fan and so I dragged John along with me to see it. I take the credit for choosing the name 'The Searchers' and for co-founding the Band in its original form."

If the link (or any others) is found not to work eventually, we should remove it, or link to a new neutral source for the quote if one exists. Either way, the 'quote' above is unecessary, as it is presumably repeated via the link... of course if it is not repeated it shouldn't be anywhere in the article at all. Indeed References is the wrong Wikipedia section to add direct quotes, whether they be verified or not, and we should remove the 'quote' from there anyway. The article's References and External Links sections are scrappy and do need a tidy-up I think; some external links are added under references, and unecessary duplications occur between both.

Best,

Acabashi (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Where did you get the information to fill in the rest of the table from? The info you added is not supported by the two sources given. If you have another source please add it. Mjroots (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done. WWGB (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Mjroots (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

My bad. Sorry I must have mixed up the sources I was checking. Cheers Donama (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

She states her lack of belief in God about 8 minutes into the radio clip. Metallurgist (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What you state is correct and I am happy with your changes. More information can be supplied very soon, as the matter is before the Tribunal on a regular basis. No determination is yet made, and all facts are not on the table. I accept your recent change, as it states the only facts that are on the table, the rest are questions or accusations. I will update the wiki when more information is supplied, perhaps as early as this week.

When we do update this section on the disendorsement and Tribunal proceedings it would only be fair to quote original sources – the QCAT documents. The rest is media hype and not based in fact. Those complete sources will be forthcoming very soon.

Cheers, Propertysouth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Propertysouth (talk • contribs) 07:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello WWGB. Regarding the rugby league list. Quite often, various editors drop by and contribute to expand that article. You and I seem to be the only contributors who also post on the article's talk page. We also seem to be the only editors who edit a variety of topics on Wikipedia, and also post on that talk page. The other people on the talk page seem to be single-topic editors who don't actually add content to that article. Sometimes I wonder whether league fans may want to bury the article, by removing all links to it, and making it as hard to find as possible. Am I being paranoid there? I also get the impression that some editors particularly want to remove the Brad Fitler incidents from the article. The current article name is crazy long. A shorter title would make the article easier to find. If the title retains the word 'players', there'll always be editors trying to delete content such as the Fitler incidents, which would be a shame. A short title would be easy to type, and the definition of what the article is could be in the subtext. Thanks for looking for a solution to the long title. Maybe a compromise. I wish there were more general editors watching the page. I wonder if a request-for-comment would be useful to open it up. Do you think that would help? Regards, Lester 22:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi WWGB. While I am not going to re-add the category I think it is splitting hairs to insist on Gillard using the specific word "atheist" before applying the category. Atheism is "in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities" Gillard was specifically asked if she believed in God, she answered in the negative. Short of expecting her to sign a stat dec to the same effect, I find it hard to see how a case could be made that she is not an atheist.Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 04:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, do not post URLs of Google hosted AP content since they are transient and will expire. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read the discussion. Firstly Momoricks suggests merging into 'Ivan Milat'. Calamitybrook agrees on the merge but without suggesting a title. CrohnieGal claims not to have enough knowledge of the case to decide on the article name. Wildhartlivie suggests it should be called 'Backpacker Murders' and Momoricks acquiesces. There's consensus to merge, but not on what to name the resulting article. And it's virtually unprecedented that an article about an apprehended serial killer be named after the crimes rather than the offender. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't let me move it to anything less cumbersome, so that's one thing in favour of the current title. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)