User talk:BalthCat/Archive 3

Templates

The Canadian one is manageable, right now there are two separate templates, one for terrorism pre-"War on Terror", and the one you've seen which is for the War on Terror chiefly. I'm mulling over the benefits of combining the two (I am the author of both) which would make a very large template, but avoid accusations of focusing on Islamic terrorism as "distinct" (FLQ and Air India Bombing being two major Canadian terrorism actions that are unrelated to Islam). I'll probably try my hand at a unique format meant to minimise the space of combining the two of them, while still making sense.

The American one is hopefully going to grow exponentially, to the point it will be split into separate templates for "American members of al-Jihad", "American members of Hizbollah", "American members of ETIM", etc. For now, I threw on the basic profiles (You'll notice that Quadell and I wrote the biographies for the 9/11 terrorists back in the day, and today myself and Geo_Swan are responsible for at least 75% of articles on terrorists involved in the War on Terror. (Still pushing QUaddel to re-adopt his old interests). Right now, I'll add on people as I see their biographies cross my desk, so to speak, and once it's large enough, I'll split it into separates. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I had not noticed, actually. (re: 9/11 articles) I was just concerned that an Islamist focus might be read into the templates. I see now that there are two Canadian ones, however their titles don't reflect that. Differentiating any sub-templates by title could go a long way towards showing that any missing data, or yet-absent templates (ie: other time periods, other focuses) are simply works in progress? Right now, for example, I look at those templates and their titles and think "That's not all..." If there was some sort of "Next/Previous Time Period" spot to click as well... - BalthCat (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Canadian-Japanese relations

Other than the edits which correct spelling errors I overlooked, yours is my favorite kind of edit. It simply didn't occur to me that I should have incorporated links to consulate and legation -- didn't even realize that, of course, there would need to be articles about these subjects. Another surprising example of something I so took for granted that I didn't even perceive that there had been something left out. --Tenmei (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Torgo

It's pretty simple really. There are no sources to establish any notability. The age of an article can't be used to circumvent one of Wikipedia's core policies. I think you may be confusing the tag with a speedy delete tag? The tag is placed there when an editor has concerns about a certain issue (in this case an obvious one), an issue that still hasn't been resolved. The merger request may be an effort to resolve it, but it doesn't stop that article having notability issues. If you want to remove it when address it first. Rehevkor ✉ 20:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. There're no sources to establish notability irregardless of the merger proposal. It's as simple as that really. Rehevkor ✉ 20:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Tammy Davis

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Tammy Davis, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Tammy Davis seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Tammy Davis, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Person

I have the same IP as the guy who made those idiotic and childish changes, but those were done last year and you have the wrong person. Users can change IPs. Be careful of who you accuse next time. I was offended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.244.151 (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Online chat

Hi BalthCat, I have seen you also edited online chat. Do you know what to do with a wiki stalker, I think this is somehow related to web conferencing or online chat? If you have some time please see my talk page. Cheers! - 83.254.214.192 (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Graveyard Alive

Hi - per your request on my talkpage, I've restored Graveyard Alive. Sorry for the delay in processing your request. If you have a chance, please add citations for the awards/reviews to the article. Please let me know if I can be of any further help or if you have any questions - happy editing. MastCell ^Talk 21:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)