User talk:Tangerines/Archive 5

Re: Dispute Resolution

Try this for more general info on resolving disputes at wikipedia: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. There's a LOT of reading there, especial see the infobox on the side. In most cases, WP:RFC is enough. In general, bringing in outside opinion as early as possible is the best idea. If people uninvolved in a dispute clearly show a consensus supporting one side, it is easier for admins to make decisions regarding sanctions, should it come to that. Good luck, and if there is ANYTHING else I can do, let me know. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how to procede myself. Try Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and possibly Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. A checkuser is usually needed to establish if sockpupetry is going on. It clearly seems like he is using alternate accounts to evade a block. I am a fairly new admin, and a more experienced admin should probably be brought in to help further. Also, another report at WP:ANI may help as well. If I were you, I would start a sockpuppet report, officialy (as above), request a checkuser (as above) and then file the ANI report requesting further help. I will do what I can as well to help where needed. If you need anything else, let me know... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, vandalism is not the only problem admins must deal with. Being disruptive is a much bigger concern, as you have found out... :). Anyhoo, good luck and all. Again, if anything comes up I or anyone else can help with, let us know. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrea Boccelli

Weirdness. Some of them appear to be unrelated, for example the Pantaloons guy. Others seem to be intentionally burying some questionable edits in amongst rather inoccuous spelling fixes. This is weird. I am going to bring in some more admins on this one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(earlier comments redacted). The issue was closed as it was determined that there was most likely no connection. In the interest of avoiding besmirching the name of what appears to be a decent editor, I have removed the links to the discussion that was formerly here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Bocelli: opera or popera

I don't know what you are implying by your latest comment to my page. It seems almost to imply that I was the anon IP from 8+ months ago. In any case, popera and operatic pop apparently link to the same article so it is irrelevant which term you use. Second, it doesn't matter if someone used an anon IP even for one contribution. Furthermore, quite some time has past and quite a few unique contributors have added to the article since then and none have removed Bocelli. None of them have seen his inclusion (quite correctly) as raising an eyebrow. Belcanti (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. the person who changed popera to opera is fine with operatic pop as a compromise. If you're interested, here's a mainstream article referring to Bocelli as the king of popera. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/27/1093518069667.html) Belcanti (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrea Bocelli

Hi Tangerines, I'd be happy to check over the article improvements. There's an essay you might want to look at here, Wikipedia:Criticism my chief concern is that its so easy to highlight and source criticism in the media that it can give it undue weight. If you want to achieve a npov you have to highlight and source the praise of the several million people who don't get paid to write a newspaper column and are happy to overlook flaws in individual performances. Mighty Antar (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tangerines and thanks for your feedback on my page. I'm fine with the opera vs popera matter as currently settled. I'm noticing you're doing a major revamp of the Bocelli article, with which I'm fine, especially seeing how it could benefit from a major reorganization of content. The thing I noticed is that you're planning on qualifying the "criticism" section, something to which I've contributed significantly. The criticism section as it is, does not seem out of line with criticism sections on other wikipedia pages (e.g. An Inconvenient Truth). The thing with Bocelli is that generally speaking he is widely admired by the public but is equally unpopular with music critics. It really is quite polarized, even more so than say Anna Netrebko who has more than the usual share of music critics against her especially when it comes to matters of taste and style, but unlike with Bocelli, she does have a fair number of music critics in her camp. Given that, the criticism section seems appropriate to me. The thing is the criticism is restricted to its appropriate section and is not the pervading tone of the entire Bocelli article which makes clear his popularity and importance as a popular phenomenon. You mentioned there being unsourced sections of criticism, but I've not noticed any myself. If you do feel there is too much critical opinion and not enough popular opinion, perhaps you could address this imbalance by noting his popularity in the main body of the article. If on the other hand, you do decide to make notable alterations to the criticism section, would you mind passing the changes through me first so as to reduce the risk of recurrence of what happened with opera vs popera? Incidentally, operatic pop should not be capitalized unless at the beginning of a sentence. Belcanti (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps of interest to you, here is an article that illustrates the point that Bocelli is literally speaking not an opera singer, as well as demonstrating that the contrast of opinion held by those in the opera/music industry (predominantly critical) and the popular opinion (overwhelmingly favorable) . The mistake of labeling Bocelli an opera singer may be akin to the tendency for people unfamiliar with opera to think The Phantom of the Opera is an opera, where in fact it is a musical. Belcanti (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I will wait to see the finished product. In the meantime, there are a few minor tweaks, more style than anything else, that I would suggest. Usually composers, at least the famous ones, are referred to by last name only (e.g., Rossini, Puccini, Verdi etc.). So you might want to remove the first names the several times they appear. Belcanti (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

True, given this is likely an audience less familiar with opera, your reasoning for the inclusion of first names makes sense. Belcanti (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and for expanding the criticism section in particular. I really appreciate you keeping me in the loop with the edits and I think it looks great, certainly much better than the jumbled mess it was before. I also agree with the idea of full name upon first mention and surname after. That sound sensible and I will make the appropriate changes. I also noticed a couple things that I'm going to change, but thought I should let you know as well. First, I'm thinking of taking out the part in the early life section that mentions his wife and children to avoid redundancy since that is also covered in more detail in the personal life section. The second thing is that a couple things you referenced in the criticism section look like they came from letters to the editor (of the New York Times), which are actually opinion letters that could be submitted by any reader of the NY Times including you and me. I'm thinking it would be better to remove these references for this reason. That's pretty much it. I know you're already done with the edits but I noticed you probably had a hard time accessing my previous link I sent to you so here it is again in a better format in case you're still interested: http://www.nysun.com/article/39307. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belcanti (talk • contribs) 03:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've finished the last of my edits. I think I've managed to catch all the little stylistic things. The last thing I haven't touched is the discography. Full opera recordings aren't really called "albums". That's mainly a pop term. If it's a CD of a bunch of opera excerpts I think it can appropriately be called an album, but I think if it a complete opera recording, it's just an opera recording. It's more a matter of wording than anything else. If you think this is worth reflecting in the article, we can create a separate subsection in the discography section called something like "Operas" or "Opera Recordings." If you think this will cause too much confusion then it might be easier to leave it as is. I'll let you make the call on this one. Belcanti (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. Just wanted you to know I've updated the discography section with a new opera subsection based on our discussions. Belcanti (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

English Democrats Party

Hi Tangerine - I'll be happy to verify anything regarding the English Democrats site, by giving sources via e-mail Please E-mail Secretary@EngDem.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.97.151 (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

*replied on IP users talk page*

Apostrophes for possessives

Please try and use apostrophes where necessary (club's first choice, as opposed to clubs first choice, for example). It makes less work for other people. Thanks. - Dudesleeper Talk 22:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Invite to Spring Engilsh Democrats meeting

Dear Tangeriney I thought you may like to meet some English Democrats, so that you can check out that we are in fact "normal" people, and you can meet Matt O'Connor. Our next General Meeting is in Slough/Windsor - Berkshire http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=42&Itemid=1 Let me know - Secretary@EngDem.org 81.2.97.151 (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

re List of hooligan firms

If it appears that there are many accounts being created to insert that vandal edit then I suggest that the matter needs raising at Admin's Noticeboard/Incidents since it may be that QPRJack will have to be indef blocked as a puppetmaster, the article protected for a few days, socks sought out and blocked and the username board be warned regarding any new account involving the use of the initials QPR. On the good side is that the semi-protect has forced this editor (although it may also involve some mates, etc.) to use throwaway accounts to vandalise.

Do you want to do the report? I will if you wish. In the meantime I will block the latest rash of SPA's. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)(Update) Both latest SPA's were blocked before my reply; one by another admins and one by (cough) me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now opened a discussion at WP:ANI#List of hooligan firms. Please check it over and make sure I have got things right. If there are any developments/new accounts, please make a note of it over there. nb. I have already advised the other admin, Black Kite, of the discussion. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

English Democrats development of the Party in Dartford

Thanks for tidying this up

Cheers 81.2.97.151 (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Alas it appears to have been taken down again

81.2.97.151 (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Grange Park

r u a kid wel i ment teenager or summit i am too lol its me from that grange park talk page btw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonjoe (talk • contribs) 17:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Great rewrite of the GP article Tangerine. Well done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.177.148 (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Simon Dormandy etc

Hey - Thanks (I think) for cleaning up some of the pages I have edited/created. However, why have you removed the dates of the first performance on Simon Dormandy? You stated that " They aren't needed anyway" - nothing is NEEDED, surely, but they were there for information - surely the detail is a good thing? With Sarah Lawson (producer) - kind of frustrating, actually, because I liked the formatting for the filmography etc. Now the image doesn't really fit in... perhaps you're right... Anyway, tell me what you think. User talk:Adaircairell 14:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Continued...

Hey - Ok, read that, will read quoted articles. V informative - thanks. Thanks for S Lawson edits; I see you're currently editing Fascinating Aida; hope it goes well; i like the ones you're doing atm. i also agree with the Dormandy thing. Many thanks Adaircairell (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Continued...

Love what you've done with the F Aida article! I'm actually building up a personal database on my computer on them, and I did indeed have that article (the intreview). You have cleaned it up v well - thanks! UPDATE:

Perhaps we should add a "Fascinating Aida:Members' History" page, or words to that effect, where we can redirect the members (except for Dillie Keane, who has a lengthy page already) to that page: For example, do sub-headings per person, give them F.A. history and a mini-bio of other work... Adaircairell (talk) 10:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sophia Elise

You can't add a db-repost to an article that hasn't gone to AfD. I put a db-bio tag on it. Corvus cornix_talk 04:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I've made that mistake myself.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 04:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Weeton

copyvio? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, Many thanks. I felt slightly entitled to cut and paste as I wrote it in the first place and I took the photo. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That was quick work! The article looks much better now. But you may want to check the details of the 2007 planning application you mention for Presse Hall. Do you mean Preese Hall Farm? Is this really noteable? Should it really be located under Weeton Barracks? Is there any public web link? Are you sure it has anything to do with the remains of the windmill, which you give as the reference? Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Will have a look at the co-ordinates, which I guess should be for the village green. Not sure you'd get away with a single planning application as a notable item on any other article page. Far more notable was the sale last year of the largest part of the prize-winning Weeton Holstein milking herd from Preese Hall Farm: this had been in existence for four generations, on one of the Flyde's oldest working farms and there are plenty of verifiable web links. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You might like to know I am discussing this article with User:Martinevans123 on my own talk page.

In case you didn't notice, Geograph licences are compatible with Wikipedia, so anyone can upload any Geograph image to Wikipedia so long as they attribute and licence it correctly. Wikimedia Commons has its own {{geograph}} template to assist with this. See commons:Image:Parlick from Fair Snape Fell 7948.jpg for an example of how to do this. --Dr Greg (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, ♦Tangerines♦. All seems well now. Will see if I can add anything of interest. Regards, Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

CamTran

For the CamTran article, I did not mean to remove anything that you edited, and I apologize for the fact that I did. Basically when I first found the article, it was said to be an advertisement, which I thought I got the out of there by making the article more of an actual history. I did the 5x ' because that's what the first editor had used, but I see your point now. When I added the phone numbers, I did not realize that it was making for of an advertisement, I just thought it was making it more informational, but now I see your point, it does make it sound more like an advertisement.

I was adding more information when you were editing, so I hit my back button, that's probably what actually readdeed the information that you removed. So again, I apologize for that.

Anyway, yea, I hope to find some other sources on CamTran itself, basically though, a lot of the information, I know myself, because I ride the CamTran every day basically, so I don't know if I can list myself as a source or not.

Would it be a bad idea to add www.wpascanner.com? It has the frequencies for CamTran's radios. I figured in case anyone wants to find their radio frequencies, they had a place to go. I saw you removed the frequencies, so obviously this page is not the place to put the frequencies.

Should I delete the fleet? I'm pretty positive that it's out of date. They bought and got rid of buses in the last 2 years. Also, yes you are right, it doesn't make sense to list the frequencies. At first it did, because I thought of it as like an all information page about CamTran. That's why the Phone Numbers were originally added. That's why I just asked you if I should put a link to them instead, just in case people want to know them, but they aren't important enough to list.

Yeah, you are right. I tried looking at my local newspaper, but only found an article on it's time to ride the bus because of gas, and selling aging buses, but hopefully I will run in to something. You probably can't use pics from their site or any other site due to copyright right? RedPenguin2 (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Jacob Cohen

If you care so much about that page, why don't you make it a disambiguation page? I'm sorry I don't know how. Carinamc (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Carina Mc

OK. I will compile some information -- obviously there are plenty of scholarly sources since he published in scholarly sources and has been repeated cited ever since -- and then maybe ask for help with the disambiguation page. I read about it first, but I could only figure out how to add a link to an existing disambiguation page. Carinamc (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Jorgensen

No worries. I've made many a howler. And I'm sure I will again. Peanut4 (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

See Irish Sea Tunnel

It was not that relevant to Irish Sea article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alien from brixton (talk • contribs) 20:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

See Irish Sea Tunnel

See Irish Sea Tunnel. I made a new article because the old crap in the Irish Sea article is crap and not really revelent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alien from brixton (talk • contribs) 20:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I made a reply already

ALREADY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alien from brixton (talk • contribs) 20:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Hooligan firms etc.

It seems that someone else got the latest sock. I believe (I'm not sure...) that once an account is registered as a sockmaster then any account from the same ip is quickly flagged as a possible sock, investigated and blocked if found to be so. Thanks for letting me know, anyhow. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

oh right yeah get your friends in to help

Yeah yeah yeah whatver. No wonder wikipedia is full of crap, with all the brainless editors it has.

rtf article

rtf manul

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it"

I edited it. It was crap. end of. Alien from brixton (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you here today?

Tangerine: I left soem comments for you on the Math for America wiki page . . .you must be out today. Well, not sure of your schedule, but if you make it in today or tomorrow, can you please have a look at it and give me some feedback? Thanks much and now that I appreciate it! All the best, and have a great day! - jo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolandawilliams (talk • contribs) 20:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Blackpool

I don't mind you creating an article. See pages for Riverdance and Abana for research sources. We have three to start with as HMS Foudroyant was also wrecked at Blackpool. Mjroots (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. you might want to keep those papers and sell them on ebay!

Holland XXIV - OK, so move it then! You're the local, not me. Still waiting for anything interesting to run aground on Yarmouth's North Beach!! If I add in what I can find, and you think they should be elsewhere, please feel free to move them. Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about the subject, believe it or not. I just have the ability to find stuff and regurgitate it into Wikipedia! Mjroots (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Help!

Tangerine: Please let me know if I should correspond with someone else about the MfA pages. I would like to get the pages as accurate as possible so that they are up and running and all tags are gone. Not sure if you are the right person for this. Please let me know. And thanks much - jo Jolandawilliams (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sonia Deol

Thanks for the work you're doing on this. I attempted it this morning, but the computer crashed and I lost the lot. I must remember to save more often, even if WP doesn't like people doing that <g> ! -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 19:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

OK I'm finished - all minor stuff - too tired to do more - diff [1] Cheers -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Math for America

Let me know when you are able to help me out again. Thanks much. - jo 16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, but I just got your message about Math for America today! I responded on my discussion page. Talk soon and hope you are having a great V-day! - jo (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Advice

After your warning, may you insert in correct manner with English language grammar this source and other source from this edit in introduction of association football? In first linked site you read section Australian Rugby Union and you read sentence the 2003 Rugby World Cup was the fourth largest sporting event in the world behind the Olympics, Soccer World Cup and the World Athletics Championships: Olympics is most followed sporting event in this source. In other source volleyball is most participated sport and Formula One Racing has the largest television viewing audience in the world. I would like insert other sources which consider various sports are most popular in the world but not soccer: sure several sources consider soccer most popular in the world but other sources no!!!!Regards,--PIO (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: KGS

It was my understanding that Wikipedia requires input from enthusiatic individuals in order to make the pages enjoyable for everyone. You have policed this page - removing most the new content, which I might add was fact, and left the page looking bare under the headings. I'm happy to spend time on the page adding, in your words 'weasel wording', but I am disappointed to see that it has just been axed at the drop of a hat. I can see that it may have looked like an advert for the school but in compariosn to other school pages, e.g. Rossall, or Stoneyhurst, that was nothing. I have no idea how to source any of the material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KGSLawSoc (talk • contribs) 23:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you please help with regards to the citations for each section of the page? I have no idea how to go about starting this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KGSLawSoc (talk • contribs) 19:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Tags on MfA Page

Hi Tangerines. Thanks for updating the Alan Greenspan book information. Can you finally remove the citations/reference tag? I am sure we have more than enough references there now. And the page has been around for such a long time now. We have people calling wanting to know why that's up there. Thanks much - jo (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Updating 'Pool's player stats

Just letting you know before you go any further that the player stats haven't been updated for a while, so just including today's game isn't accurate. It's best to check the Soccerbase links first. - Dudesleeper / Talk 17:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Blackpool Shipwrecks

The Gazette has added another feature on Blackpool shipwrecks to its website. I'm adding details to the Blackpool article, but wondered what had happened to the Commandant Bultinck. I think you mentioned it should be under Fleetwood - did you move it? Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The shipwrecks section now has 20 entries. Mexico was actually wrecked at Southport, but I think it should stay due to the connection with the lifeboats. Is it time to consider splitting this off into an article on its own yet, or should it be expanded further before that is done? Mjroots (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You typo'd a typo on the football article !!

No offence but you just did
ThisMunkey (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC) But it was a good idea just you fixed a typo'd it XD
ThisMunkey (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey

I am Russian. Do ou want to visit Russia? Its great there! my Gradmother has been to Denmark by the way. - Albania T

Re: QPR Youth Wing

Aaargh. See the can, see the worms... No, I can't check whether it's the same user, but if you suspect sockpuppetry then WP:SSP and WP:RFCU are the places to go. If you think on the evidence of prior contributions that this is a sock please feel free to relist for speedy deletion and flag the users on their talkpages as suspected sockpuppets. I won't denounce relisting for speedy as vandalism! For what it's worth I think the article is almost good enough, pace any policies that WikiProject Football, to remain as an article on a hooligan firm, but I'm happy to accept your prior knowledge. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Getcha worm-lids heeyar! Only a fiver, guv'nor! One thing, is this an indef block or an indef ban? The two are different. I don't see JackQPR on the list of banned users. A ban can result from continued disruptive edits on another account; TBH I don't see that article as particularly disruptive (though only marginally notable). Tonywalton ^Talk 22:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the essential difference between a block and a ban. A block is on the account, a ban is on the person. (and a lot of people say "ban" when they mean "block). As for working out who is and who isn't sockpuppeting, the reliable source is checkuser. A select group have checkuser permissions - they can see the actual IP address for users. This isn't open to just any admin (myself included). If two usernames swear blind that they're different people but are using the same IP address... Well there you go. But because of privacy concerns a request for checkuser has to be made formally at WP:RFCU, Tonywalton ^Talk 22:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, {{db-user}} is fine by me. Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 22:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Rename request

Please rename Seven Wonders of the Natural World to Seven Natural Wonders of the World. The second seems to be the more common term, and is better grammatically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordsmithsonian (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no move tab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordsmithsonian (talk • contribs) 21:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to interrupt, new users only get the move tab after a while, certain number of edit/time on wikipedia, something like that. English peasant 21:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Should there be a period at the end of the title? No other titles have periods at the end. Wordsmithsonian (talk) 21:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for changing it. Wordsmithsonian (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

ISO 3166

Dear Tangerines, Thank you for explaining the change to my contribution. I do have a question though, I'm hoping you can answer for me - the link I provided is to a publicly available database, a majority of the information is free to the public and relevant to the Wikipedia topic, so does it not qualify as appropriate subject matter to be included? Also I see another entry along similar lines just above my entry, which continues to remain in the topic. Thank you for taking the time to educate me on this. Regards, Mkwk567 (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Pressure washer

Took care of the problem and he got blocked. The IP he used will also get blocked. I would still watchlist it though, as he'll probably be back in a day. Grsz11 (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Tatao

Hi Declined speedy. About town. Inherently notable. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 05:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thompson Solutions

Hello Tangerines: Thanks for the great editing. I want the article title to be "James Thompson", but since I am a new user I must wait 4 days to "move" this -- is this correct? There are many other articles with this title and I was wondering if you could please help me out here? I am working on the other things you tagged. Thanks for your patience and keep up the good work. Fenimore (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: Yes, the title has already been changed to 'James Thompson (researcher)'. I believe '… (inventor)' would be more exact. Would you be so kind to edit this for me? Thanks a bunch! Fenimore (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

PPS: Sorry, I am so old school. Still getting used to the Wikipedia Way. Good editing on your part. Fenimore (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User warnings

Hey, don't forget to use the maintenance text on the speedy templates to warn creators of speedy article candidates. It's only fair! ;-) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 23:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hooligan firms

I'm a bit unconvinced about that Luton MIGS article too. It's practically all about other firms, and of the sources, most don't mention them directly, and some that do are primary sources. What do you think? Black Kite 17:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Bat Ball

Yeah, it's annoying, b/c I can't imagine that this article will ever get into shape. But I think it's worth giving it some time to see. Tb (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Va37492

Ok,thank you for the note on the link! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Va37492 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

1Stop

Hi. I also nominated this page for deletion as it is the second, if not third time, someone has attempted to create a page on this topic. I also nominated the page for deletion the last time and attempted to work with the other creator to no avail. Thought you should know.A little mollusk (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Cooperative Center for Study Abroad

I removed {{cleanup}} from this stub since stubs do not have actionable style issues. Please reconsider tagging stubs with this in the future.--BirgitteSB 16:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Article about S.Kleiman

Hi,

I couldn't understand why the article about Steven Kleiman was deleted. He is one of the leading algebraic geometers of 20th century, who studied under the direction of Oscar Zariski, the father of the American alegbraic geometry school. In fact, he last his last student. Steven Kleiman is Professor at the Math Department of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He works in various subfields in algebraic geometry having made seminal contributions in motivic cohomology, intersection theory, moduli theory, etc. There is an article in the wiki about one of his discoveries - Cone of Curves (Kleiman-Mori cone). Also, there is a web page of in the net about a math conference dedicated to his 60th birthday. In MathGeneology Project there is a list of his students, the title of his PhD thesis, etc. In MathSciNet, you can find over 100 scientific articles written by him. I can continue with some other reasons why there should be an article about him, but I think this is more than enough for the moment. Would you please tell me what is the problem.

Swetko (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Swetko

Article about S.Kleiman

Ok, I understand that. Since this is my first article I don't have any experience. Would you please advise me what I should do in this situation.

Reply to your edit summary

In reply to this edit summary, "What's with all the notability challenges? Apparently, you don't think that parliamentary procedure motions automatically count as notable? They're rather important to the conduct of business" Apparently nothing of the sort, to be honest the notability tag was a mistake as was the footnote tag. We all make mistakes at times and I made them in those tags. However, all the other tags are still perfectly relevant. I was not questioning whether the articles should be created or not, if I was doing then I would have placed a deletion tag on the articles, and not tags to improve the articles.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 03:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about my tone, I'll try to be more chill about that kind of thing in the future... Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

'Pool's nosebleed

Do you think you'd be able to find out Blackpool's highest league position during the 1977-78 season (the last time they were in the second tier)? Since they were relegated, I doubt they were in the top half of the table much, so I think it might be worth mentioning this season's accomplishments table-wise. Their highest position this season is 7th (after the opening-day victory at Leicester).[2] (see chart at bottom of page) - Dudesleeper / Talk 13:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

English Democrats Entry

Dear Tangerine - a few months ago, we agreed that you were going to "Look after" the English Democrats Wikapedia Page, to ensure that it had no "Verfication" tags on it.

You have not done any work on this

Why is this ?

We are now approaching a serious Election, and if you can't keep the page update, then please keep off of it.

The fact that you will not use e-mail, is of great concern

If you are serious in your support for English Nationalism then please e-mail Secretary@EngDem.org.

We do not want any "Verfication" tags on this page, as it makes it look untidy and not looked after, it has to be to the same standard as the Conservatives, Labour, or UKIP, or we will find someone else to do the job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.97.151 (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)