User talk:Nabla/Archive 2

Thanx

Thanks form your support in not removing Denny's attack page of me. Useful if he refuses mediation and we go to arbcom. Cheers, SqueakBox

I supported, or not, nothing. I simple removed a couple of CSD tags - G6 (Housekeeping) - that looked to me not to fit the given pages. - Nabla 02:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying Denny doesnt have the right to speedy pages in his user space? SqueakBox 05:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The tag I removed was placed by you, not by him. It had a very hard to read summary - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADennyColt%2FSqueakBox-rfc&diff=122309313&oldid=122291420 rv was placed by user - so I missed the was placed by user part. My bad. Looking, now more carefully, to the page's history I notice that the tag was originally placed by DennyColt. Given that it is not a move from any other namespace, I will deleted as a CSD U1 (User request) despite it had been tagged as a CSD G6 (Housekeeping), since that does seem to be the user's wish

Anyway, if you ever need to use the page's content for a mediation case, you may always ask some admin involved in the mediation to undelete it or, at least, get it's cntents back.

Thank you. And enjoy! - Nabla 16:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Pedro Nunes

Hello Nabla! Thanks for your recent improvements in this article. Something I hope we'll get someday are the ISBNs for all the cited books. (Or maybe the texts of those books are all included in that link below to the Portuguese National Library). Plus, is there any chance you know what that writing is in the background of the Nunes stamp, shown in the photo? EdJohnston 00:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's my pleasure!

ISBN (references) - Of the two book references one has the ISBN stated at the page. The other doesn't seem to have one... I have it standing on my table right next to me (went this afternoon to the library to get it) and I can't find it. Also its record at Portuguese National Library site does not have one.

ISBN (works) - 16th century editions don't have ISBNs, so I guess you're asking about modern re-editions. I haven't thought of that!

There is one - wich is my source's source... - published by Academia das Ciências de Lisboa (Lisbon Science Academy) (1940-1960) including 4 of his original works. No ISBN though.

And a recent one (looks like still ongoing) by Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian (2002-), wich shows two - ISBN 972-31-0985-9 and ISBN 972-31-1084-9 - I guess they culd be added to the article (and Gulbenkian usually has cheap books, maybe I can get my hands on some, someday)

Stamp - Hard to say. The first line on the top clearlly looks like "Nunez" with a decorated initial (ancient Portuguese spelling of Nunes, or Spanish but that would likely be Nuñez). The others I can't figure out, they look like partial words. I looked at a few fac-similes available (on the link at the article) but I don't seem to find a match. You made me curious... I don't know where to find that, but I'll give it a try if/when I see how.

- Nabla 01:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any thoughts about whether he was a New Christian? This was one of the queries on Talk:Pedro Nunes.

It looks like there are some copies of the Gulbenkian edition of the Obras in some American libraries! (found via Worldcat). Thanks for that ISBN. Of course if you are in Portugal you would have access to more things. EdJohnston 02:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for enhancing the article with new info with respect to New Christians in Portugal. Does the Jorge Martins book discuss Nunes in particular? If so, is there a page reference available? Thanks, EdJohnston 00:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read it... but apparently it does not discuss Nunes in particular, I'll read the 16th century chapter later. It has an extense (50 pages) chronology of jewish events (from the 12th century to April 2006). That chronology has a short entry on Nunes' birthdate and work. (volume III, page 258)

BTW, I remember reading somewhere, that he might have avoided to make written coments on Copernicus' system to avoid any problems with the Portuguese Inquisition. The events dates make it likely: 1502-Nunes' birth, 1536-Inquisition in Portugal (Jews were their main target), 1543-Copernicus' system, up to 1567 Nunes' publishes works. I recall some author claiming that he wrote/said that it was a good mathematical model, without venturing into wether it was the right one or not. But I read that some 2+ years ago, it will be hard to find out where... but I'll try has it may be an interesting bit of info for the article. - Nabla 00:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: Now I have read it... at least the part refering to 15th and 16th centuries. There is no mention to Pedro Nunes there. - Nabla 13:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

delete User:Z.E.R.O./top, not User talk:Z.E.R.O./top

could you please restore User talk:Z.E.R.O./top? You must have accidentaly deleted it. ↔ ^tz (talk · contribs · autographs) 13:17:14, Thursday, April 19, 2007 (UTC)

You requested that User:Z.E.R.O./top was deleted, which I did, so I naturally deleted the talk page too.

Note that you do not need the page deleted if you want to keep on using it - unless you needed its history to vanish for some reason - so it is was a fair assumption that the talk page was also to be deleted.

Anyway, I will restore the page right away. Enjoy! - Nabla 16:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Hi, thank you for your contributions to this article. However, Robert Murat's official status is that of 'suspect'; he only becomes a 'defendent' when charged with an offence. Further, it is clear that the consensus amongst editors favours 'suspect'. Please accept this. TerriersFan 23:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know an arguido is accused with an offence. If it fits a British 'suspect', accussed', or defendent' I'm unsure. Apparently it fits all depending on the stage of the process as, and that is for sure, what you call a 'defendat' is also 'arguido' in Portugal. That is, the english phrasing that Murat is a 'suspect' is probably right (you should know better than I - and that is why I stopped editing even before I read this) but the implicit reference than an 'arguido' is a 'suspect' is wrong. Never forget that a majority only shows it's strength, not that it is right. - Nabla 17:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Care.com

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Care.com. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rjongm (talk • contribs)., at 2007-05-21T21:36:30

Thanks. Added a comment there. - Nabla 00:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

For cleaning up the User:Tocsese accident. Cheers, --Aarktica 15:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's part of my 'job' here. Enjoy! - Nabla 15:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of tags to Upper Ditchford

This is a reposting of a deleted article by the same user. I was just curious as to why you removed the speedy deletion tag. There was no explanation on the talk page. --Cyrus Andiron 11:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The speedy deletion of reposted articles applies, as I see it, only to those «deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process», not to previous speedy deletions. Off course the previous speedy deletions are a good hint that it may be unverifiable, unremarkable, spam, etc., but not a reason by itself.

I removed the tag because a quick search showed up a few pages that seems to support its existence, and as a second edit I added a couple of those external links, which should address the verifiability issue.

As to notability, I think that most places where people live(d) are likely to have some historical events related to them, thus having some notability. I agree that this one, as is, has a very week assertion: «one of the many villages that were abandoned or removed as part of the 19th century land enclosure acts» (my emphasis). Maybe a notability tag would be fine in this case, but I thought it deserves a try.

You are right, I could have said this in it's talk page but I assumed the added links would be explanation enough. Enjoy! - Nabla 13:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Biggest win and defeat

Hi, I see your discussion there on the wikiproject football page and I see your point, I'll add my thought on that issue there later on. However I suggest that you move the discussion to the main project talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Since more people there, there would be more people noticing it. You can see that some of the discussion in [Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/National teams]] go unanswered or some has very very late answer.

I also agree about the trivia question. I always think that some trivia are not really relevant to the article, I also never knew about Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. It's nice to learn something new. Regards. Martin tamb 12:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's why I like it here, despite it's many flaws, we always learn something. Maybe annoucing the discussion at the main talk page would be enough? - Nabla 13:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be good to announce it there so that more people can see and comments. Martin tamb 14:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. - Nabla 14:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Germania Park Move

Thanks for the help fixing the Germania Park site. Philosopher06 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC).

You're welcome :-) - Nabla 15:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jack dinsmore deletion summary

I probably should let you know that I used your deletion summary of Jack dinsmore as a cautionary example at WP:AN#Deletion summaries for attack pages. I've no intention of singling you or that particular deletion out specifically (and indeed I know I've left such summaries myself before), but it just happened to be the one that prompted me to write that note when I saw it while checking newpages, so I decided to use it. I'm sorry for any undue attention I may have focused on you in doing so, and I hope you won't take it personally. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. And thank you for reminding me of that. - Nabla 18:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

In Regard to a Certain Mythological Chicken Category

I would like to thank you for your comment calling for respect and the assumption of good faith. Looking back, I see several rude and altogether uncalled for comments in my post. I sure don't want to come across as a jerk on Wikipedia. We're all here to make the site better, after all. Once more, thanks for helping me to try to be a better contributer. Czar Baldy Bald IV 00:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Czar Baldy Bald IV has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Than you. And no problem, we all forget once in a while that behind a username there is someone. And the name *was* funny :-) - Nabla 01:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist

Do you know what happened with my watchlist? It do not show anymore a changes in last 30 days, but only in last 7 days? Who changed this and can that be returned to previous 30 days list? PANONIAN 08:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't noticed anything... I don't use it much (I have my own "watch" method). Thanks for the warning.

As to the cause, a look at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Watchlist timelength shows that it looks like the developers changed the time limit. So there is no changing that, unless they allow it again. - Nabla 13:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hangon Sent to me

For whatever reason, the Hangon article was sent to me, so I thought it was my obligation to put it on the main page. if not that then what should I do with it? Ignore it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hourick (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure of what you are talking about... Is it about my removal of a {{hangon}} from Jessie Davis? Assuming so...

hangon is meant to be used in articles that may be "speedy" deleted, but that article is not, so the tag is useless in this situation.

The article was nominated for "normal" deletion. To discuss it you should go to the page indicated in the notice on the top of the article (as this article's entry).

For information about "speedy", normal", and other, deletion processes see: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP is much more complicated than it probably should...) - Nabla 14:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

FIFA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Your proposed merge is going to be carried out shortly Chaza93 20:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK - Nabla 16:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Your April 27, 2007 edit of Priority

I must be slipping because, until today, I didn't catch the fact that you had removed the following from priority on April 27:

• Debt and security priority, the legal heirarchical order of entitlement of secured and unsecured creditors to payment. (See, subsection "Legal and banking terminology" under the topic, Hierarchy).

Can you please tell me why? Anoneditor 02:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it is a red link, thus it does not help in disambiguating.

Plus it pointed to a non existent subsection of another article, otherwise that link could be used.

I would not be against to you re-adding the entry, without the mention to that non existent subsection. Nabla 16:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit

Hi, Thanks for starting this. I tagged it for "under construction", and "WikiProject Law" on its talk page. Bearian 17:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. That was the point, really: a "provocation" so that someone expands, as I don't really know how. But I'll keep an eye on it, to give an hand if/when I can. - Nabla 19:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I added more stuff - content and cites. Bearian 23:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, can you help me delete the Shawangunk (town) category?

Hi Nabla,

Thanks for your note about Category:Shawangunk (town). After creating the category, I realized that a much better name would be Category:Shawangunk, New York and so I created that one and depopulated the first one. I thought that without anything in it, the old, empty category would just vanish, but apparently not. What's the best procedure to follow in these cases? Could you help me delete the category or point me to where I can learn to do it myself (or does it take an admin to do it?)? Again, thanks for your message. Noroton 22:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it takes an admin to delete. You could have tagged it with {{db-author}} and someone would do it. In this case I'll do it right now, using your note there as the equivalent requent. Thanks, and enjoy! - Nabla 00:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Carnation Café deletion?

Hi I noticed the bot already deleted my Carnation Cafe article. It was part of a Disneyland stub that I was going to expand on once I finished getting some more sources. I'm working on cataloging all the rides and restaurants inside Disneyland. Can you not delete it? Thank you. Jonnyboyca 18:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I did the deletion, following another editor's tagging, not a bot. The bot simply warns article's creators. It was deleted under the "no claim of notability" speedy deletion criterion. But I accept that "being in Disneyland" may be considered a claim, if a faint one and one I do not think is enough. So I'll undelete it *and* add a notability tag to it too. Try to establish notability, other than simply by association to Disneyland, both in this and other such articles, so to stay clear of more deletion proposals. Enjoy! - Nabla 21:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Camp Concord deletion

Since when do votes get ignored in AfDs? There is no mention of this in the AfD policy pages that I could find, and I find it to be highly out of place, especially considering how much emphasis WP as a whole claims to place high value on input and contributions from all users. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 18:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

We do not decide based on vote counting, but based on consensus (see Wikipedia:Consensus). "vote" is merely a shorthand for "the opinion expressed by", so the number of "votes" is a good indication but the opinions are more important. The opinion expressed by you was not for keeping that article, but to keep *any* article, assuming notability is not a suitable criterion, which goes against the (somehow WP specific) definition of «Notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice".» (in Wikipedia:Notability), and was accordingly disregarded as providing no reasoning for that specific article to be kept.

You are naturally entitled to disagree with my reasoning. If you think the deletion was wrongly decided take it to Deletion review. Enjoy! - Nabla 19:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ingrid Hoffmann

Thank you for taking care of the Ingrid Hoffmann move/history merge; it's greatly appreciated. :) María (críticame) 18:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• I thank you. Enjoy! - Nabla 18:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Julie Amero

I am puzzled as to why you tagged this article for lack of notability.

There are six references (pared down to the most relevant) that clearly prove notability.

In fact, Julie Amero's case is so notable that she has made the national news in Ireland. LittleOldMe 11:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Given this is about the article, I'll presume there is no problem I'll move this to it's talk page and reply there: talk:Julie Amero#Notability. Thank you for contacting me! - Nabla 15:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot fault your logic, it makes absolute sense. Thanks. LittleOldMe 10:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Enjoy! - Nabla 15:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill Shanks

The Bill Shanks article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 08:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you back

:) Enigma ^message 08:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Me and WP is a love/hate relationship :-) Nabla (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

gayelle

Gayelle (lesbian), I have added many new RS to the article and therefore I would like you to reconsider your vote that was based on a previous version that did not take your WP:NEO or WP:N and WP:RS and WP:V concerns into account.NewAtThis (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't voted, I commented. And I keep an eye on the few XfDs I do vote/comment - that's why I do it only on a few. - Nabla (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

FOSS article

Hi,

I've reverted the change of this page to a disambig. It really doesn't make sense that we would have an article on free and open source software, and yet have the abbreviation of that term point elsewhere. Whatever happens to the parent page, the abbreviation should point to the same place. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Classifying my edit as "patently nonsensical" is far from polite. You could have done the same revert without being rude. And your message here is prove of that.

FOSS is mentioned in both articles, so it is not patently nonsensical to have a solution that acknowledges that (temporary has it may be, pending a possible merge).

FOSS does not stand for "free and open source software" only, so most likely it will become a disambig sooner or later, as soon as Forum of Small States or Fiber Optic Sensor System or ... (see more). So why quarrel over it's present target?

(I will copy this to the artice's talk page, please carry on there if you wish to)

Nabla (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied. Apologies for the abrasive edit summary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Accepted, no problem. I replied too - Nabla (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Right process for FOSS article

Hi. Maybe I can ask your advice on this. You're the second closing admin to tell me I'd chosen a wrong procedure regarding the Free and open source software article:

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_25#FOSS_.E2.86.92_Free_and_open_source_software

I've no desire to get the content of that article destroyed, and I don't think it and it's redirects should be replaced with blank pages or redlinks. What I do want is for that stub article "Free and open source software" (which has no original content and no contributors) to stop masking the free software and open-source software articles which were written over the course of years by 100+ contributors.

However, that stub is often used for (thus far failed) merge proposals, and I don't want to stop anyone from proposing merges or from working on potential merge proposal texts.

I'm thinking now that maybe the correct procedure would be to put it on Wikipedia:Requested moves suggesting it be moved to the original creator's user space. Can you tell me if you think that's the right procedure for what I'm trying to do? Thanks in advance. --Gronky (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... tricky one. Let me try to take one issue at a time, trying not to get too long

I kept the redirect for the reasons already stated. I also noticed that you edited it's target, so it looked like your issue with it was not it's existence but it's target.

Requesting a move from article space to user space will most likely be speedily closed as inappropriate too. The normal way to remove articles from article space is deletion, moving them to user space is a possible temporary step in order to improve an article (see:Wikipedia:User_page#Copies_of_other_pages).

When I closed the redirect discussion I wasn't aware of the 'bigger picture' you're showing me now (and it was not important for the closing anyway).

I took a look at the articles you mention and, as I see it, the "problem" is that we have several largely overlapping articles: Free software (FS), Open-source software (OSS), Free and open source software (FOSS), Alternative terms for free software (ATFS), Open source (OS) (for it's most part), maybe more?! I also note that Open Source Initiative (OSI) and Free Software Foundation (FSF) also exist. I also note that Open Source history redirects to History of free software.

They clearly need a large reorganisation.

Probably FS, OSS, FOSS, and most of OS could be merged. Focusing on the common views of OSI and FSF and leaving the differences (somewhat subtle for the common reader, as myself) for a section, based on ATFS, and for the OSI and FSF articles.

The fact the the "history" article is unified shows that it is possible. Though hard, probably...

If your goal is something like that - give or take the exact details - I would suggest you stay cool and open minded, these tend to become heated religious discussions. That is, focus on getting the merge - what and how. The actual title(s) are less important, and may be changed later.

As to process I would try 3 steps:

• (Re)Place merge tags on all affected article. Use {{merge}} or {{merge-multiple}}, not {{mergeto}}, to highlight the fact that the important thing is the merger, not the target. You'll have to chose the same talk page as the target for discussion FOSS (the article) is certainly the best place, as it already has a (ongoing?) discussion.
• Announce it at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers
• Placing a Request for comments may be useful too.

If your goal is the opposite, keeping the articles separately, the same process still may be useful. The best way to finish of a merge discussion is to have it... and a RfC may always be useful.

Feel free to warn me here about an eventual RfC, although I'll probably notice it anyway as it is on my watchlist.

I hope I was at least a bit useful. Enjoy! - Nabla (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Very useful! I'm glad I asked before starting yet another wrong procedure. I'm generally pro-merge. The unified history article is my doing, as is the "alternative terms for free software" article (before which, we also had articles for foss, floss, libre software, and OSS/FS). In the future, there will surely either be a further merge or a redefinition of topics/scopes (i.e. "open-source software" might turn into an article about that name, the marketing campaign that launched/pushed it, its usage, reasons for adoption etc.).

(The "Open source" article can theoretically be ignored because that page was made on the basis that it will not talk about software but rather a general "openness of source" concept which can be found long before free software or "open-source software". I think that's not a legitimate topic and that the page's authors are not sticking to it, but I'll leave them to it until they themselves decide to merge.)

The problem is that all this is unlikely to happen in the short or mid-term. In the mean time, the free and open source software title, plus redirects which have been made point to it, is masking articles representing years of work by 100+ wikipedians. From your comment, I guess an Afd (after the current merge proposal is declared dead) is then the best procedure (with a note recommending that someone take a copy to their user page so that work can continue, if desired). --Gronky (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to take the article out of article space then yes, I guess AfD is the way to go. Another option would be to let it stay and instead focus on rewriting the articles, possibly from scratch at some "quiet corner" (say a subpage somewhere) and invite the involved editors to agree on a structure and major topics of each article/section. - Nabla (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Classical music in popular culture deletion

Thanks for closing this AFD. I agree 100% with this article's deletion, but there were several requests to keep the Talk page, which I also think is a good idea. Can just Talk:Classical music in popular culture be restored? / edg ☺ ☭ 08:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. - Nabla (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did the talk page end up? It doesn't seem to be at Talk:Classical music in popular culture. TJRC (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It end up deleted as someone noticed it was orphaned but missed my warning on the top. I restored it again. - Nabla (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Your recent closing of three related AfDs

I see you're closing those "lists of ____ portraying sexual attraction to children" - if you check, there's a fourth here. I don't know if you can bundle the four together while closing, but if not, I thought I should inform you (as the soon-to-be closing admin) that regardless of the outcome, your decision will likely affect this fourth non-bundled item. I'd also say that in your closing it might be good to remind people of WP:BUNDLE. Good luck closing, I realize that it's alot to consider. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't consider that article while closing because it is not nominated. - Nabla (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw your close, and appreciate the last bullet point. The (probably unintentional) forking that occurred probably made that discussion less productive than it could have been - a centralized AfD later (if the lists aren't improved) may end with some resolution or consensus. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It was quite clear that the discussion was confusing because of it's dispersion, after I saw your input in the discussion. Without it the closing of the "books" article might have been a delete, as there were quite a lot more and (strong) delete opinions there, while the others would have been clearly no consensus/keep. That would help nothing, it would only make it more complicated and a possible wiki-drama. And thank you for pointing the fourth article. - Nabla (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Anytime, I'm always glad to help connect the dots - it's an important part of building consensus that often goes overlooked with so many discussions going on all over the wiki. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• I also think you are wrong on the list of songs at least. WP:DRV time. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • OK. I'll comment there. - Nabla (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. Note that, as an editor, I agree with most reasons to delete that were raised in the discussions. And the article, as is *now*, is actually more of a CSD A3 (no content) than any kind of keep. - Nabla (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

History merge?

Hemostatic agent seems to redirect to itself. Are you still in the middle of the merge, or did something go wrong? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I see now you were in the middle of the merge. Sorry for the noise. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Enjoy! - Nabla (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Classical music in popular culture

Thanks for the heads-up. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Romance-speaking states of Europe

Template:Romance-speaking states of Europe has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.--DerRichter (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Warcraft MfD

Thanks for doing the cleanup work following the Warcraft MfD. Much appreciated! Gazimoff ^Write_Read 21:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - Nabla (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Western Australia Police

No big deal, but why edit perceived typo to 'Royal commission' and not 'royal commission'? Cheers Bjenks (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point... I simply 'fixed' the red link so it pointed to Kennedy Royal commission, without uch thinking about it. Maybe the article title is (also?) mis-spelt? Taking a look at the official website it seems to write them as '[Name] Royal Commission' - Nabla (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Tingling

What is meant by "tribe union"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe an alliance... I'm not sure. The grammar in that stub is quite poor - «The avars was the tieloe tribe union most west members.» ?? - but that's probably because it is from an hungarian IP. Yet, maybe there's something useful there. You got me curious to take a further look later... - Nabla (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)