can you rename this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katarina_Karpe%C5%BE from Katarina Karpež to Katarina Krpež (her real name)? thank you --Backij (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. WWGB (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to contact you to talk to you about an article... is there a messaging system attached to wiki? 66.188.244.214 (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 66.188.244.214[reply]

Just leave a message here, I will see it. WWGB (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I admit to freely linking to a Daily Show clip, but it was done to promote the same thought that you had. I believe the reopening of a national debate is not made by one article capturing statements from politicos that choose not to talk about it further. Not a debate. Same proposed laws every year, not passing. Not much of a debate. The democratically controlled senate wont even take the matter up for... *debate*. :) Perhaps someone could say that passions were en-flamed on both sides of the issue, with the 10-15 editorials from newspapers linked to show that folks were writing opinions, but not debating? Just a thought.  :) Have a great day! 66.188.244.214 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.244.214 (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for noticing my mistake here :). Ironholds (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you agree with me that it is a pointless exercise for formal footnotes in this page. There appears to have been an RfC but none that I was aware of at the time to make comment. From what I could see from the archive is that there was no consensus so nothing should have changed. The logical next step would be to not have inline references for the current events portal. Could we not appeal to a higher authority and reverse this change? I can only see one advantage in having footnotes and that is to be able to combine a reference into multiple uses, such as the Polish air disaster where several notable people perished. Nasnema  Chat  19:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged this for deletion under CSD:A7 which does not apply to software. I've deleted it as advertising, but in the future just remember that software is not covered by A7. -- Selket ^Talk 22:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know there was a policy on that. I have seen dab pages for cities/towns that have the county/state as another wikilink though?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the relevant guideline is so that readers are not left wondering which link to click. If you see multiple dab links elsewhere, feel free to remove links other than the primary article. Regards, WWGB (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the tip. Whatever you do, don't search Hatzic it is a dab nightmare.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are radio personalities not allowed to be placed on the recent deaths page? I could not find the documentation in the help area for the recent deaths eligibility. Mr Xaero (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be included in recent deaths, the deceased needs to have their own Wikipedia article. If not, a redlink may stand for one month after the death in case an article eventuates. After that one month, the redlink is removed. WWGB (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, you changed "In response, gun purchasing in Colorado increased 43% as consumers rushed to buy guns in fear of new gun control legislation" to "In response, gun purchasing in Colorado increased 43% as consumers rushed to buy guns, possibly in anticipation of new gun control legislation."[1] Before I add it back, I would like to get your brief thoughts on this issue. I'm looking at dozens of reliable sources that not only use the word fear, but cite various experts, retailers, and consumers who use the term. Viriditas (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reference stated "Friday's shootings - and the threat of greater gun control stemming from them - are driving people into gun stores". I did not see that "fear" was mentioned in the article. Regards, WWGB (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When we paraphrase from sources we often use words that are not mentioned. Your point, however, is that my interpretation and word choice isn't supported. And, while I could easily argue that it is, since fear of gun control is the primary motivating factor, a quick search of RS is much simpler to demonstrate:

• "Firearms sales are surging in the wake of the Colorado movie theater massacre as buyers express fears that anti-gun politicians may use the shootings to seek new restrictions on owning weapons...Sales spiked following the election of President Barack Obama, when weapons enthusiasts expressed fear that the Democrat might curtail gun rights." Associated Press
• "...Colorado guns sales jumped by 43% over last week. From the time of the Friday shooting to the end of the weekend, 2,887 people were approved to buy firearms through state background checks. This gun rush was not happening in Colorado alone. From Connecticut to Washington state, gun sellers were as busy as elves at Christmas. And everywhere, buyers were giving the same reason for their purchases: fear of gun control." Los Angeles Times
• "One reason for the spike in gun demand is the understandable desire for safety and self-defense. "Whenever there is a huge event, especially when it’s close to home, people do tend to run out and buy something to protect their family," Don Gallardo, a manager at Arizona Shooter’s World in Phoenix, told Bloomberg News. In many cases, gun owners also stock up on guns and ammo after mass shootings in anticipation of increased gun regulation. "It’s kind of a fear buying syndrome," says Feldman [president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association]. "There are people that go, 'Wait a minute, they may outlaw that gun!'"Businessweek

There are more, of course. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the "Reaction" section where the POV disagreement occurs, that is where the template belongs

Not true. This POV dispute involves summarizing the reaction section in the lead as you well know. Viriditas (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only the Reactions section is in dispute. If the matter is resolved it will be reflected in the lead. The entire article is not in dispute, and such a tag is unwarranted. BTW, the article is being read by over 40,000 people every day. Do we really want to tell all the readers that the whole article is unbalanced? Surely that only serves to demean Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, yes, we do want to tell the readers it is unbalanced because it is. There are hundreds of news sources discussing the Colorado shootings and gun control, but every one of those sources (and their respective content) has been censored from the article. Viriditas (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add the following reference to Isabella Bliss? I am having trouble. http:// www.news.com.au/entertainment/television/brisbanes-isabella-wins-junior-masterchef/story-e6frfmyi-1225954057174 Thanks. Pinklilac ^Talk 12:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. WWGB (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WWGB,

You reverted an edit that was possibly right. See 13th-fatality. That Holmes will not be charged for this is another story. It does not make the edit wrong.
Kind regards, Klaas ‌ V 09:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were a number of issues with the text added to the article.

1. An eight-week fetus has never lived, and hence can not be considered as a fatality.

2. Miscarriages happen for many reasons. While the mother's stress may well have been a factor, this has only been asserted by her family's (non-expert) opinion,

3. There is already legal opinion that Holmes will not face a 13th murder charge for the miscarriage.

4. I have no idea who Michelle Malkin is, but her opinion would never be considered as a reliable source in Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could me point where is written that a death of a notable person that still does not have a page on English wikipedia is not allowed? I can't find the point you are referring to. --Cavarrone (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you wrote in Talk Page: "any redlink with the potential for an article (Greek actor, Japanese politician etc) should remain, whereas a person with no hope of an article (high school football player) will never have an article and may as well be deleted immediately." So, being all these persons have already an article on Italian wikipedia and several of these on multiple wikipedias, and being that their deaths were all reported by reliable sources, why are you deleting them? Seriously, how is possible that Giancarlo Bigazzi, composer of notable film sountracks (Mediterraneo, Mery per sempre) and notable hit songs (Gloria, Self Control, No Me Ames, Tu and many more) that already have a page in Italian, Deutsch, Français, Portogues and Latina wikipedias has no potential for an article in English Wikipedia? Cavarrone (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I read your answer, it means I will create brief stubs about them before re-adding them at the list. Regards, Cavarrone (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently deleted Ülkü Adatepe from the page 1 August claiming that notability is not inherited. But an article exists in Turkish WP. Also in English WP, she is described in the personal life of Atatürk. I slowly begin to think that you are not pleased with my contributions, since in each case you either edit it or delete it. It is very hard to understand your behavior. Egeymi (talk) 07:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest or displeasure in your contributions to Wikipedia. I just apply policies, guidelines and consensus in a fair and consistent manner. Being someone's "adopted daughter" will never cut the mustard in terms of notability. Did she do anything significant in her life? Was she an author, a philanthropist, a politician? I don't know, because I don't speak Turkish and you did not include any indication of notability in her death listing. So please don't deride me for your actions. You might also like to read WP:AGF. WWGB (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to help, but please be aware that Roman Kroitor's death was truly on September 17th, not the 16th. I know this to be true as A) I am his son and B) the death certificate is on my desk as I type this. I have corrected it twice but helpful people keep uncorrecting it. Also his birth, which is erroneously recorded in several major, but immutable, sources, was actually 12/12/26.

PS: I've reverted your edit to his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlatarK (talk • contribs) 22:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was a poor edit. It's clear there is no consensus in the talk page discussion to include this material. One should not revert without leaving a proper rationale and reverting should only be used for vandalism or edits that resemble it. I would therefore respectfully ask you in the first instance to undo your edit and try to achieve consensus in talk for the material you wish to include. --John (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Equally, there is no consensus to remove the names that have sat in the article for almost two weeks. There was no formal Request for Comment, in fact, there was not a heading that indicated the topic was up for discussion. The heading "Tables appropriate?" does not even hint at the removal of names, why would an interested editor be drawn to the discussion. I don't read every discussion at every talk page; I'm sure many others do not. So, no, I will not be undoing my edit, nor should the material be removed until there is a proper discussion and consensus to remove. Regards, WWGB (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. (diff) Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 23:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is beyond your expertise, please let me know but on the List-Class Death page, it lists some of the monthly ones under the numerical 2 heading. Wouldn't these fall under the D heading? I know there's a way to fix this by removing the "listas" formatting on the respective talk pages, but was just curious. My anal retentiveness would also prefer them sectioned somehow by month and year there but that would be extreme. If you can answer this or direct me to who can, I would appreciate it. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm far from expert on such things, but does it depend on whether you place {{DEFAULTSORT:1997, Deaths in}} rather than {{DEFAULTSORT:Deaths in 1997}} in the article? I think the first case is sorted under "1" and the second is sorted under "D". Regards, WWGB (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Wikiproject Shell class formatting also affects how it's listed, which is why Talk:Deaths in April 2005 is under "A". I haven't seen any policy at any of the Wikiprojects for the articles except that they should be "logical and useful to the reader". To me, logic would have them under the Alphas rather than the Numerics. I may move them when the mood strikes me. (And I'll let the respective month/years slide.) Thanks for your input. — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WWGB - you edited a change I made here, and i'm struggling to see why - I was called away before being able to add the citation for the name, but Christine should be called by her first name since the divorce, as this is the name she is using. The media in general are calling her Sharp, but there are many papers who are naming her by the other name? (Christophermiller1981 (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hello WWGB

I Took your advise on Talk:Jessica_Ghawi Serious and created and extend the Stub about Jessica_Ghawi (it resides in my sandbox User:Fox2k11/sandbox and I Submitted it for Review to WP:AFC I like to Hear your (frankly) Opinion on it revising advises are Appreciated thanks Fox2k11 (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.

• Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
• If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
• Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
• Show off your Credo access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Credo_userbox}} on your userpage
• If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

absolutely no need to name uninvolved persons in James Holmes suspect: there is a conspiracy theory traveling the internet and Youtube that James Holmes might have stumbled on to research that his father may have been predecessor to that covert organizations may not have wanted known, along with a second gunman unlocking the emergency exit from inside, and too easy of a capture. "Uninvolved" and background are two different things, but I agree unless there was a cover-up and his father's research was pertinent. Not only that but his father invented several unique algolrithms. If someone wants to eloborate Youtube runs a documetary on the subject.

yadda, yadda, yadda, it is all down to mutant muslims from mars. Get a grip! WWGB (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theeres more on the talk page. It seems dubious at the moment, but could be credible wih more. Take a look there and give your view.Lihaas (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why we'd delete them if there's only a few. All fed and state pages have at least the poll prior to the election. But the last poll of the election always changes. It is more meaningful to look at polls in terms of patterns, and with a poll a quarter, I really don't see the issue at a state level. Timeshift (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why notability was not proved for my entry to "Deaths, 29th December 2010"?

Here is what I posted:

• Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja, 89, Vaisnava guru from Mathura, India; author and spiritual leader [2]

There are two sources there - one links to 150 books he wrote in 5 different languages, and the other to a neutral site reporting his death (it is a Hare Krishna page, but not of Narayana Maharaja's institution).

Has anyone else on that page written 70 books in English, 40 in Hindi, and had another 40 translated into German & Spanish? Did you open one of those books before deleting the historical record of his death?

Please note: This gentleman was very famous in Hindu religious circles, and I have a wealth of information to prove that if you wish.

ShyamDasUK (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No-one else on that page may have written 70 books in English, but at least they all have a Wikipedia article. It is an agreed position that any redlinked deaths (those without an article) remain for only one month after the death to enable an article to be written. If/when Narayana Maharaja has an article, then the death notice can be restored. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RSVP! :)

I see, thank you! He *did* have a Wikipedia page, unfortunately, he was somewhat controversial in the Vaisnava world and had some enemies. Those people repeatedly insisted he be deleted (on spurious grounds of being non-notable) and eventually Wiki's senior editors acceded. I've written a draft to prove he was notable, here user:ShyamDasUK/Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja, others are in the process of re-writing his biography, the original page (archived) is found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Syamadas/Bhaktivedanta_Maharaja and he still has a KnowledgeWiki page I could link that obituary to, if that's any good :)

Thanks again for your attention. Please take a look at the draft I wrote re. his notability and tell me if you think it meets that criterion. Best wishes, ShyamDasUK (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you kindly respond to my last post on this matter? Much obliged, ShyamDasUK (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a basis for notability. I have also found several media references that would support notability. eg [3]. I suggest you submit the article and see what happens. WWGB (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How was my comment Attacking? I was just talking about a article I have read about that I thought I made that clear with my last sentence?! --Fox2k11 (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that writing "[his parents] not care about him anymore" is not an attack on them? If I wrote that your parents never loved you would you find that acceptable? I think that is a horrid thing to say about parents when there is no reliable evidence for such an assertion. WWGB (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken I worded my comment indeed a bit harsh :/ Sorry... Fox2k11 (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WWGB,
I added the names of the 3 soldiers killed recently in Afghanistan to this page (diff) using the ABC [4] as a ref. 220.239.231.183 (talk · contribs) later replaced the ABC with the 'standard' defence.gov.au/vale sources (diff). I noted that the government refs don't actually mention the cause of death of the soldiers, or that an Afghan army soldier was involved. (I think this may apply to other soldiers as well) Therefore, I re-added the ABC ref, but now '220.239' has removed it again, (diff). Does this make any sense to you? I know the information is correct, but doesnt wp:verify practically require a reference for this type of content? (shot by an Afghan soldier that is.) Regards, 220 of ^Borg 10:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The defence source does not report the c.o.d. so another source is required. I will continue to monitor and respond as necessary. WWGB (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have re-added the ABC ref, thanks. I will keep an eye out too. Hopefully, it will be a long time before this page need updating! - 220 of ^Borg 10:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i take offense that you want to delete my article! very popular concert venue during the 70s where many notable artists performed. do a google search. Buttchunker (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better you put more effort into improving the article than wasting your time here! WWGB (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

don't go there dude, if you don't know rush and robin trower than you dont know rock music, thus u should not mess with my article Buttchunker (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You gave this person a {{uw-coi}} warning. I doubt this person has a conflict of interest; the Maltese version of the article was created in 2006 by a different person and "Luke Collins" is not a Maltese name. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected!

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The articles need separate pages I think, for example List of Burmese dishes!! --Zayeem^(talk) 11:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WWGB. I really, actually did LOL! --Shirt58 (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response here. Timeshift (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WWGB. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 05:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know if it was an accident, but you left Hitoshi as a disambiguation page with only one entry in it. The point of disambiguation pages is to enable somebody searching for a term/name with multiple meanings to find the article that relates to a particular meaning of it. If there is only one meaning, it doesn't make sense to have a disambiguation page. So if you remove entries from a disambiguation page to the point that there's only one entry left, then just turn the page into a redirect. — Smjg (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email.

• If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
• If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful in your reversions at this article (the red light incident). You are at 3, and although an admin might be sympathetic with your viewpoint in this matter, a 4th revert over a content dispute would violate WP:3RR. Remember, there are many editors (89) watching this article, so other editors can express opinions on the talk page and edit the article appropriately.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I am "at" 2 only. WWGB (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good answer, even if it were true: 11:02, 11:48, 12:43 (all UTC).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it IS true, it's a very adequate answer, please check the FACTS before you harrass long-standing editors who are well aware of 3RR and stop after TWO reversions. This was the first revert, this was the second revert. Can you find a third? No, of course not, because it never happened! Shame on you for accusing me twice with no evidence. WWGB (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The third revert. You are correct that I didn't look closely at the nature of the third revert (adding of tags), so I'll temper my comments accordingly, but realize that some admins might count your third change as a revert as there is no express exemption for that kind of change, even if you think it's innocuous.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT? Adding a template is considered a revert? Please direct me to the section of WP:3RR that supports your assertion. I dislike being argumentative, but you are just digging yourself in deeper here. Perhaps it is time this lame discussion was laid to rest? WWGB (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to believe that you dislike being argumentative. I was trying to help you, but you're apparently unable to see that. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edits? The media has described them as "Al-Qaeda Sympathezirs" and rightly so. Just imagine if we replaced these muslims with nazis, and replaced their al-Qaeda flags with the Swastika, would you then consider them to be "Nazi Sympathizers"? Of course you would, so why not in this instance?--Collingwood26 (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which media? I think you are going to need a reliable source to keep that posted. WWGB (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK here--Collingwood26 (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/384875/20120917/pm-julia-gillard-condemns-violent-islamic-protest.htm[reply]

Are you discussing your reverts? I am.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey WWGB. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WWGB, you deleted 2 sections here and here a few hours ago. Would you mind adding them into the articles you said they should be in, instead of deleting them like that? Since you removed them, you should be re-adding/merging them into the other articles, otherwise your deletions will likely be reverted. Also, I think you should be adding a topic in the Talk page on whether to include specific sections/content or not. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have just undone your revision on the Wesley College, University of Sydney, page as I believe that Marion Arnold as a national broadcaster Is notable and have added references to show that she attended Wesley and is at the ABC. I didn't add the most obvious SMH article [5] on her as it was written by Malcolm Brown who also wrote the Wesley article. If you really don't believe she is notable and choose to delete her again, I won't undo it as I have no interest in an edit war. Castlemate (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Brynne Edelsten has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. WWGB (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Reactions to Innocence of Muslims (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Muenster, Du, Dearborn, Muscat, Phuket and Kouba

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just wanted to note regarding Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) that consensus is not required to remove unsourced critical claims on a BLP. They should be removed immediately. Also, the article still has the significant issue that a great deal of the critical material is a direct, or near direct, lift of [6]. Unless this is resolved it may be removed again. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue blanking with a misleading edit summary as you did here, i may have to seek sanctions against you. Pass a Method talk 12:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your huffing and puffing and learn how to summarise what a reference actually states. WWGB (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was a misleading edit summary. If it continues you may get blocked. Pass a Method talk 12:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft, yeah right, Judge Judy. WWGB (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WWGB, you moved Kolbes Entry to September 23. According to the obituary he died "in late September". Therefore I moved it to the September-deaths. The article was published on October (not September) 23. If I understand you correctly, it must then be moved to the October-deaths, because it was announced in October? Best regards, --NiTen (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to argue with you about infobox citations, though I disagree. Your opinion is as good as mine. What I would like to ask is that you make a formal contribution to the talk page RFC there, please. I think it matters that folk comment within the structure there even if they have made the same comments elsewhere. I am not seeking to influence what you say, naturally, just hoping that you will say what you wish in that part of the page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox edit is not an opinion, it is in the Manual of Style: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#References in infoboxes. I am aware of the RfC, and will consider a comment. Regards, WWGB (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed that you removed the current event template at Steven A. Cohen. No big deal for me, but I'm thinking that a) it is a big current event just waiting for all hell to break out loose (the largest insider trading prosecution in history) and b) readers do need something of a warning here as the information, though conservatively restated from the highest level financial sources (Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg), is incomplete and somewhat confusing. In short the 35th richest man in the US has been "named" in a federal indictment as "Portfolio Manager A," an as yet unindicted co-conspirator, who appears to be the ringleader of the largest insider trading case in history. I'm just slightly hesitant to include the info (repeat-conservatively restated from the best financial news sources) without some sort of warning. The s hit the fan about 10 am on the 20th, the splatter will be seen, one way or the other, tomorrow. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template guidelines provide for it to be "used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day". When I checked the article, the rate of edits was quite low. If hell breaks loose and the article is massively edited, then the template can be re-added. Regards, WWGB (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I bumped into an article whose topic does not interest me, but made an attempt to tidy some areas up. I may be incorrect, of course. I know you have strong feelings on layout etc, so hoped you might run an eye over this discussion and give an impartial view. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, Patriarch Theodore II of Alexandria and Patriarch Theophilos III of Jerusalem?--The Theosophist (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Category:Greek Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch: no Patriarchs in the titles. WWGB (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that we specifically do not include awards, such as Academy, Emmy, Tony, Grammy, etc. Am I incorrect? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen strong support for the omission of major awards. One editor, Rusted Auto Parts, removed them on the grounds that they were "boasting" but his objection was not sustained. WWGB (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I (incorrectly) thought that we did not include awards as a matter of policy. I can indeed see it being a Pandora's Box, for major actors or sports figures, though, who have won many major awards. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually someone recently created an article from my redirect. Yours, Quis separabit? 23:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Lanza fails notability based on this: Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Crime victims and perpetrators and only exists as a redirect. Should he be added to the list? My fear is that as a redirect it will never be scrubbed from the list if the article isn't created (and until lasting notability is established it shouldn't be). Just my 2 cents - I won't oppose if he gets re-added. Rikster2 (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Good catches on the Sandy Hook article Amadscientist (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But be careful. I think you may be at 3 reverts.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had just clicked the revert button on all of the ip's edits. Somehow we both made the same decision at the same time (I guess you were slightly faster). Ryan Vesey 07:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WWGB, you might be interested to know that you were mentioned in this article regarding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing material.

I do see your point. You seem to want the article to be only about heads of government comments and condolences. However, this is not the title.

Some people may piggyback to your concerns and want to destroy the article so that it can be deleted later. If so, you could be used as a tool.

I say that we should respect the title of the article and further discuss this on the talk page. In the mean time, let others improve and add. Don't just remove the whole section. Think of how this article started. The leaders' reactions kept on being removed by others and it was hard to retrieve. Don't do the same thing here. Let's discuss on the talk page.

Secret hint: If you insist and nag, I will not fight you and let you have your way. Auchansa (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does Wikipedia deal with a mass shooting? A frenzied start gives way to a few core editors. No mention of me though:). Nice diagrams, and a quick look at the page histories of shooting incidents will show a core of regular editors.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable to whom? You? IMDB seems to have quite a few listings as does Google. That YOU do not know him does not necessarily indicate non-notability. Lack of a Wikipedia page is now an indication of non-personhood in the world? Why play fast and loose with this when in fact as I'm sure you know, "notability" is a debated definition? Is Wikipedia running out of disk space? Or is "deletionism" going too far... =//= Johnny Squeaky 22:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about THIS person... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivek_Singh "Noteworthy"? Really? Simply because someone built a Wiki page and no one had the good sense to delete it? So, if I build a Wiki page for Aleksandr Davydov, does that make him "noteworthy"? =//= Johnny Squeaky 02:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you have some WP:OWN with this section of Wikipedia, but you, sir, may not know everyone and everything and therefor are not the end-all arbitrator of "notability". Indeed, at one time or another everyone did not have a Wiki article dedicated to their name. Having a Wiki article is not the arbitrator of "notability". Simply a fact that you will have to live with. Thank you for your time. =//= Johnny Squeaky 02:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Vivek Singh, "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the Summer or Winter Olympic games" per WP:NOLYMPICS. Yes, if you start an article about Aleksandr Davydov and it survives, then the Wikipedia community considers him notable. WWGB (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a consensus that "notable" people will not be included unless a group of unknown and possibly retired editors agrees on them? Really? So once a "consensus" is agreed by a junta of WP:OWN editors, nothing can change? This is the case? Really? How very very sad. Article and Section "ownership" is one of the primary reasons editors leave Wikipedia, which is a very disappointing thing. I can't fight your ownership and therefore I will not add to this section again, but you should be ashamed of yourself for your non-inclusive behavior. =//= Johnny Squeaky 03:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ashamed of anything. You might read WP:AGF. Lose the chip ... WWGB (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no chip, I only observe a troubling trend to exclude rather than include. It diminishes the value of Wikipedia, and those that tow that line, sail that flag, are known as "deletionists". =//= Johnny Squeaky 07:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page at the school's site names O'Brien as principal. (I checked when the change popped up on my watchlist.) Deor (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim O'Brien is still the Principal at Oxley HS. He takes up the position at Epping from Term 1, 2013. WWGB (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Holidays!
	Hi, WWGB! Have a happy and safe season, and a blessed new year! Holiday cheers, --Discographer (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Plese see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.173.161.10

As well, se the Talk Page. Can you do anything? =//= Johnny Squeaky 19:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this fix. I wasnt sure what to do. Sort of related, in case you didn't see it I have left a comment at Talk:Lists_of_deaths_by_year#Redirecting "Deaths in..." pages. Cheers - hope you have a good NYE. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you have been made aware of this. But, in the event that you were not, I wanted to point it out to you and bring this to your attention. Your name was mentioned in this article: How does Wikipedia deal with a mass shooting? A frenzied start gives way to a few core editors. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WWGB! Happy New Year!
A BLP, Beate Sirota (age 89) has been updated to show the person as deceased, but has no reference yet to verify. The issue was started off by IP 68.175.83.174 (talk · contribs) enquiries at the Helpdesk, see Wikipedia:Help desk#Beate Sirota Gordon.

The issue gets a passing mention in edit summaries. I have been unable to find an online source. I have posted to the IP editors talk page asking them to provide a link to a source. 'Beyond My Ken' has made a very relevant comment at Talk:Beate Sirota#A note about the date of death as I was typing. FYI, Regards, 220 of ^Borg 08:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Do you never archive your talk page? Haha. — ^Wylie_Coyote 11:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=159427&fm=newsmain%2cnarts

Interesting article for you that I ran across during the daily research. Here is a NZ newspaper commenting on the death of a New Zealander in Samoa. Notice the headline.Sunnydoo (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And another- http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/kiwi-dies-in-samoa-prison-cell-5311245?ref=rssSunnydoo (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And another- http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/south-pacific/8142685/Kiwi-dies-in-prison-cell-bucket Sunnydoo (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that "Kiwi" is a nickname for people from New Zealand. I made that point on your talk page. Kiwi is NOT, however, an acceptable adjectival form to describe a native or citizen of New Zealand in Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me. 79.243.211.242 (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why I'm unable to log in? 79.243.211.242 (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no idea. I am not an admin or technical person. WWGB (talk) 13:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You brought up Hong Kong tonight. It falls into the same territory as Puerto Rico, Indians, etc. It is a SAR (Special Administrative District) owned by the Chinese but managed like a territory. The same distinction Indians, Samoans, Puerto Ricans, etc have in the United States, the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar with the British, etc.

There has to be an equitable solution so that everyone gets treated fairly out of this deal.Sunnydoo (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Taylor Hooton.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by PR campaign. The article was badly weighed against the subject of the article. In addition, it contained some poor sources and information was talked about different times in different sections. Can you help point me to what was wrong with the edits that I made, other than being "too much at one time?"--NikoVee (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC) I see from the talk page that there were some PR campaigns in the past. Just because I edited the article so that it is more neutral doesn't make it a PR campaign. Check it for neutrality if you like. --NikoVee (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just for starters, you removed any mention of his prison term. That alone stinks of a cover-up. WWGB (talk) 06:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. You should put in something about his prison term. You can put it after the part WHERE I TALK ABOUT his convictions and getting kicked off the medical register. Yes, you caught me trying to cover-up that he was arrested, convicted, and now not allowed to practice medicine. I was hoping that I could cover it up completely by just removing that he went to prison. Maybe next time I should remove everything about his convictions. It is called neutral point of view, not cover up. --NikoVee (talk) 07:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WWGB for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.

I'm dropping this note here as you may or may not be aware that an editor filed the report. Tgeairn (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For excellent work objectively streamlining over-referencing at Victoria Leigh Soto. Jokestress (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]