User talk:Davidpatrick

Welcome!

Hello Davidpatrick, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Jaxl 03:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This type of censorship makes me sick

Vote to keep, show these hypocrites what's what, tolerance? ha, only when it's good for them--Diatrobica;l 23:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Pete Townsend

I don't feel strongly enough about it to revert it myself, but the definition of the "Sex Offenders" Category would appear to apply. He WAS put on the Sexual Offenders List. The article does a good job of explaining the situation. John 05:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. But then I would suggest (maybe, I'm new here myself), you propose changing the definition of the category atCategory_talk:Child_sex_offenders. Don't get me wrong, Mr. Townsend is one of favorites and I don't believe he's into the little ones, but I want the category system to work cleanly. John 06:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

gotcha. Like I said, its not a big deal to me and I don't plan on doing more about it. Happy editing! John 07:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for three (3) hours for violating the three-revert rule at Pete Townshend. Deltabeignet 06:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate your advice in dealing with an issue where someone is repeatedly reinstating a controversial category. The issue has been debated endlessly and the other person keeps reinstating the category on flawed grounds. Advocating that Townshend has conceded guilt for a crime that not only did Townshend NOT concede guilt for - but for which the police elected NOT to charge him - and thus for which there is no conviction at all. I have at all times averred that the information should not be supressed - and rightly belongs in the article itself. But it does not warrant inclusion as a category. Davidpatrick 06:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• It seems to me that if you want to remove the category, you will have to disprove the criteria at Category:Child sex offenders: namely, that Townshend has been convicted of a crime against a child (obviously, he hasn't), that he has publically admitted offenses (which he may or may not have), and that he has been placed on a sex offender register, (which he apparently has). I can see both sides of the dispute. Deltabeignet 06:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a complex matter - no question at all. I don't dispute that he has been placed on the list OF sex offenders. But even the police acknowledge that he isn't a sex offender per se - because they didn't charge him and he wasn't convicted. The police elected not to charge him (and they certainly would have if they felt they could get a conviction.) The British police are not in the habit of letting anti-establishment rock stars "get away" with something as pernicious as child sex offences - in the full glare of public and media scrutiny. The agreement with Townshend was to give him an official caution - in which the person ackowledges that he/she has engaged in unwise activities (but NOT criminal activity - or else he/she would have been charged) and the person undertakes to use better judgement in the future. A mandatory requirement of accepting the caution is placement on a list of those who HAVE committed offences - even though you haven't. It's like someone being given a mild punishment for having been close to doing something wrong by being made to stand in the corner with those who actually HAVE done something wrong - and been committed of such an act.

This is an extremely controversial practise and could not survive in American law (absence of due process) That is an aside - but it is an important aside.

The peculiarities of English law are not easily comprehensible - even to the English! And certainly not to people outside the UK.

If the category was "People who are ON a Sex Offenders list" (and that was about all those who are on such a list - irrespective of how or why) - then while I might argue whether it was material enough to Townshend's life to warrant inclusion in the category section - there might be some merit for it. But if the category is just Category:Child sex offenders: - Townshend most assuredly is NOT one. He is on a list (as explained above) but his place on the list is a mandatory by-product of his NOT being charged or convicted as a sex offender.

In other words - after 4 months of investigation the police finally acknowledged he was not a sex offender. And refused to charge him. But an aberration in the English law meant that in being cautioned to be careful in future he would nonetheless have to go on a list with people who ARE sex offenders. That was part of the warning. A sort of equivalent to the "scared straight" program. We won't convict you - but we will make you visit a prison to scare you into making better choices so that you don't SUBSEQUENTLY break the law.

If Townshend WAS a Category:Child sex offenders then he would have had to be charged and convicted and he would have been sentenced to serve time in prison. None of those things happened.

It may seem a small point - but I believe that a person's reputation should not be needlessly besmirched. Davidpatrick 07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• While we're on the subject: I've suggested a compromise over at Talk:Pete Townshend. It basically consists of using Category:Crime suspects instead. I'd much like to hear your thoughts. Deltabeignet 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi - first of all thank you for taking up the matter. I looked over at the Talk:Pete Townshend page as currently shown - and your suggestion didn't seem to be there (unless I missed it) right now. But I found it on a previous version. Perhaps it was accidentally deleted when the last few posts were put there? Anyway - I'm not a wiki expert but it looks to be a promising compromise. Townshend certainly was a crime suspect. (Of course many people who have articles about them on wiki - have been crime suspects and such a page may be deluged with links.) I think if it is a page about people who HAVE BEEN crime suspects - then that it absolutely fair. He is not currently a suspect. But he WAS. A legitimate category as it is a distinction that can be made between people who were at one time suspects - but who were not ultimately charged, prosecuted or convicted. I don't know how to express that succinctly as a wiki title. The SENTIMENT of the category title should be: "People who at one time were crime suspects but who ultimately were neither prosecuted nor convicted." (but in 4-5 words!) Category:Crime suspects ultimately not prosecuted ????

That would certainly be fair. We also need to ensure that the body of the article reflects this fair compromise.

In fairness to the person who is opposing me on this - the issue is extraordinarily complex. English law uses terminology that is confusing to English people (let alone those in other countries.) eg Townshend was suspected of "making indecent photographs of children." Any reasonable person would be entitled to think that that meant that Townshend had been posing kids with a Nikon. But it turns out that "making" was in fact English legal terminology referring to Townshend TRANSFERRING an image on a website on to his computer - thus MAKING a photograph. (As it happens the police eventually decided that he had NOT done that.) But the point is that the legal terminology - without careful explanations - could easily and understandably cause mis-perceptions. My understanding is that wikipedia always strives to clarify matters - for a wolrdwide readership.

Thanks Davidpatrick 23:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean; discussion seems a little deadlocked. The anonymous editor added the page to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society and law, which will hopefully help bring in some more outside help. It's probably best that you refrain from confronting the anon, as that hasn't been going well. Of course, as other editors take part in discussion, I encourage you to talk it over with them. Crazy stuff, this! Here's to it all working out peacably. Deltabeignet 23:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll second Deltabeignet's comment: Don't bother confronting the anon user. His actions have become increasingly irrational and hostile, and at this point, he's blatantly POV-pushing. Your points are well-made, and the anon user finally undid his formatting changes so your edits are easier to read. I suggest that you keep an eye on the page, responding to talk page comments from other editors, but otherwise consider your points made and let the anon user rant and rave all he wants. Wikipedians tend to frown on behavior like his. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If he continues adding the category, we should just have the page protected again. No single user should impose his will on a page in the presence of an ongoing debate. I might support "sex offenders," but it should come about as a consensus on the talk page, not because some anonymous user says so. | Klaw ¡digame! 14:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• You are quite right, Category sex offenders" should not be there because I say so. However, not should it be there as a result of a "consensus". It should be there because it is right. At every stage I have provided sources so that everything I say can be looked into and verified - Acts of parliament, Home Office cautioning guidelines, etc. Either no-one reads them or no-one stands them. Read the sources, understand them, then come round to my consensus. 81.178.224.140 23:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the incident takes up too much of the article, but in the short-term, the answer is for someone to bulk up the rest of the article, as trimming the controversial section would inflame the situation. There's no justification for a subpage here, IMO. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Townshend

Thanks for the note on my talk page, but I'm afraid I don't know if I want to enter this minefield. -- Mwalcoff 00:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that the biggest issue is the listing of Townshend in Category:Sex offenders, and that the category is going to be deleted soon. -- Mwalcoff 02:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I should apologise if this ever seemed to be getting personal. By the way, this area is not complex or difficult, it is just incredibly badly reported and explained. 81.178.224.140 11:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Townshend again

Sorry, I didn't look at my page till now. I think the article is in MUCH better shape now than it was. My point, however, was not only that Townshend's article was unbalanced. This was obvious and has dramatically changed since. It's important always to remember what we do here: We create an encyclopaedia. The sole criterium for mention in an article of some fact is an objective importance of that fact.

One thing should be discussed more thoroughly in the Wikipedia community: We can't evade making judgments what is and what isn't important. Just writing something because it was in the press, because the police investigated or for some similar reason makes Wikipedia dependent on judgments of others, which can be just as well wrong as right. (Not in the moral sense alone, but in the factual sense also.)

"Sex offender", in my view, is a defamating pseudo-scientific tag for people who cross boundaries some people don't like them to cross. Let's just take an example: For all times, there have been cases where people over eighteen slept with people under eighteen. Even more obvious: In the US, there are still homosexuals on the sex offenders' lists in some regions. Some people like to tag some behaviour as deviant. If we want to follow them in doing that, we have to discuss the matter and make a judgment - which can, of course, be wrong. That's the risk with every judgment. But just following the law - which, at all times, has been historically contingent - we secretly affirm its judgments. Just to make myself clear: We might be unanimous about what murder is, and might, for that reason, write: "Jack the Ripper was a murderer." In other cases, we might have to write: "She was accused to be a terrorist (though not being one, if we define a terrorist to be that and that) and for that reason, wrongly condemmed." Just to write in that latter case: "She was accused and condemned of terrorism" wouldn't be NPOV, because it would imply at least a tacit agreement.

Best, --Fountaindyke 19:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Minor grammatical error

I'm afraid that I can't give a detailed response unless you provide more specifics regarding what page you're trying to edit and what you're trying to add. Posting to WP:AN is pretty much the same as approaching an individual administrator, such as myself, when we can usually take care of it without discussion; thus, it shouldn't be needed at this point. If you let me know the details, I'll be happy to help you. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that wasn't too minor. We really appreciate people pointing out errors like that - I'm surprised I didn't notice it myself, but it has been a while since I've read the anonymous talk page footer. It's fixed now. Don't hesistate to let me know about any other errors you find in system messages (MediaWiki:) or protected templates. Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. That wasn't a grammatical mistake; 'they' was used on that page as the most commonly-accepted gender-neutral pronoun. The new revision works just as well, so it matters not. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 04:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I guess I've always been inclined toward the "traditional" grammar, though it appears that it'll be a moot point. Anyways, though, I think the current wording should work; let me know if you disagree. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Popular misconceptions versus historical accuracy

Intersting, again. :-) While I think I understand the gist of your comments, I think I need some clarification. Could you provide an example you were thinking of? Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to that above, haven't I? :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is interesting. I've never been heavily involved in editing band articles on Wikipedia, but I'll try my best... A quick, cursory look at Category:Musical groups and Category:American musical groups doesn't show any current cases like that. The closest I could find was at Human nature (disambiguation), which disambiguates between two titles, one band, a film, and the main article. My own thoughts would be that the use of "(original band)" should be discouraged, because there's no clear definition of "original", and that the use of either time period or geographic origination, when possible, should be used. The closest guidelines I can think of off the top of my head are at WP:MUSIC, which is more for notability, and the Manual of Style; however, I can think of nothing specific off the top of my head that is listed in the policy. I hope this answers your question. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Openly

Fair enough...wasn't trying to lecture or anything... --Mhking 05:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

re: Miramax Films

That particular IP's attacks on that article and all the others that he targets are definitely vandalism. The user violates WP:VAN and, since he targets the same articles all the time(in between blocks that is) he can be referred to as a Wiki-troll. If you catch him up to no good the procedure is simple: test1, test2, test3, test4..report to WP:AIV..done. He gets extended blocks for his efforts. For this type of troll, I think it has become an extreme case of proving a point. Eventually...he'll get bored(we can hope). Good luck Anger22 00:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Those insidious salt and pepper shakers

The salt and pepper shakers issue has arisen again -- you'll recall there was some debate on the Glenn Ford article about this. Well I just found the same line in the article for Bob Hope and I have a feeling we might see the line sneaking into other articles. If you happen to spot any other references to salt and pepper shakers, please let me know via my talk page as I'm going to keep track of this as I've seen similar "let's put little falsehoods in and see if anyone notices"-style vandalism before. Cheers! 23skidoo 14:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Help requested

The user you mentioned is the "Disney/Barney vandal", who targets various articles and lists related to Disney, animation and children's television. See Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Disney/Barney vandal. She or he uses many IPs, most of which are listed at the link I've provided. Typically we don't indefinitely block anonymous users because doing so would penalize a lot of legitimate editors. In particular, the Disney/Barney vandal edits from some Los Angeles school IPs, along with dynamic IPs from Comcast Cable. Whenever I see this vandal around I file a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, or WP:AIV, including a link to the WP:LTA section above so the blocking administrator will know they're dealing with a repeat offender. Thank you very much for your interest in helping fight this persistent vandal. We need all the help we can get. szyslak (t, c, e) 03:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick follow-up. That particular IP was blocked for three months. [1]. Looking at the WP:LTA entry, I'm sure he will be back. Hang in there. You can outlast him. =) Just to satisfy my own curiosity, how did you find me? I don't recall having crossed paths with you before (but then maybe I have). -- Gogo Dodo 04:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Re your message: Ah, okay. I wasn't aware I ran across this IP before. I was RC Patrolling, reverted and warned him. Then he must have fallen off my radar. -- Gogo Dodo 06:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The list of IP's that is shown above is missing at least one more. Unfortunately it's the only one that ever responded to any messages on the talk page. I can't find it right now but the response was from the editors sister. They claimed that their brother was autistic and they really enjoyed editing Wikipedia. A look at some of the edits these IP's make would certainly seem to have the marks of either a young editor or someone who had a problem. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Filmex

I am just going through articles in Category:Film festivals, fixing categories as needed (moving American ones to Category:Film festivals in the United States & Festivals in [state] right now). I regret that I have no new information on the individual festivals themselves. I should probably list all my category changes as "minor". --Vossanova ^o< 19:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Amnesty tour infobox

Please see my response at Talk:A Conspiracy of Hope Tour. Wasted Time R 18:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, User:crashintome4196 figured out how to do the infoboxes the desired way. Wasted Time R 12:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Epstein

I have added a firm reference that the Epstein story is "hogwash" as Spitz wrote. I will now revert... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 15:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now put TWO strong references in from Spitz, and from Miles, that Epstein's story was, as Spitz wrote "hogwash", and Miles wrote "not true". If anyone wants to argue with them both I suggest they find a better reference. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 15:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So WHERE are your in-line citations, I ask? It looks at the moment that Spitz and Miles agree with your version. I will put "citation needed" on your comments. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 15:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Pete Townshend

Hi. I was interested in how your removal of factually correct info from the article fitted with your edit summary: "removed factually incorrect info. Accurately and proportionately dealt with in the article". A look at WP:LEAD might also be in order. Thanks. --Guinnog 17:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I skimmed the talk page. I cannot see why anything there would outweigh WP:LEAD. You need to be careful with WP:3RR as well. --Guinnog 18:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Pete Townshend - "soft-ban" on fixated editors

I am hereby banning SqueakBox (talk · contribs), Davidpatrick (talk · contribs) and Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) from editing this article; I am implementing here a "soft-ban" - as the article history shows the edit war exists only between these three participants, and thus the article may be unprotected in the event of these users being banned from editing. Upon the event of these users violating this soft-ban, administrators may, at their discretion, implement blocks from editing Wikipedia in enforcement of this. This is made in line with ArbCom precedent that editors who perform fixated edit warring upon an article may be banned from editing that article, such as in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair. Should anyone have any questions or concerns relating to this, please do contact me. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

New template created for infobox

Not only did I fix the Human Rights Now! Tour infobox, but I created a new template based off of {{Extra chronology}}. The new template is {{Extra tour chronology}} and was created exclusively to be used with {{Infobox concert tour}}. –Crashintome4196 16:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha - no, that's referring to the type of template it is. Esoteric is a type of programming language that is used in making syntax templates on Wikipedia. –Crashintome4196 16:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Spitz

"has one or two notes of inaccuracies in the Bob Spitz book. They are the tip of a large iceberg." This is almost slander, and although I no longer contribute to that Beatles' thing, I would like to know if you have actually read the book. I don't think you have, and that is a direct accusation. We could easily prove this by you telling me what the third citation is on the index page. You could also explain exactly how many mistakes he made. The ball is in your court. andreasegde 12:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Section removed

In order to be consistent with other edits and reversions I have done in relation to certain editors, I have removed a section from your talk page. This section is still viewable within your history. If you disagree with the removal, please feel free to revert or request clarification on my talk page. 23skidoo 18:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The "new words" comments on Talk:Pete Townshend

I've removed the "New words" section from the talk page, to which you commented, as off-topic and inflammatory. --Tony Sidaway 10:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Monty Python

hey there, I've noticed you're a Python fan and have been working on some Python-related material here on Wiki. I thought I'd let you know that I have proposed a Wikiproject dedicated to Monty Python and would like you to show your interest. You can do that by adding your name under the interested user page on the proposal page. Fell free to leave comments there as well. Also I ask you to let any other users you know have been working on Python-related material about the proposal as well. I look forward to starting this project as soon as some interest shows itself. Ganfon 02:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged Wikipedia:WikiProject Monty Python, now with your interest and three others, it may well be rehabilitated! Chris 02:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Title of two Amnesty tour articles

I see your point. It's ok with me if you move those articles to names that don't include the "Tour". Wasted Time R 14:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Live Earth

Regarding your edit in the article, please be more careful in future. Do a google run on "gore aid", and you'll see more than one blogger has referred to the event as such. By the way, since when is CounterPunch a "blog"? SalaSkan 16:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:SPOB music CD.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:SPOB music CD.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Roy Strong

I have a published source (in Quad QMC mag, June 2005) saying Strong became director of the V & A 1st jan 1974. Shall I place that on the article or do you wish to contest it? thanks Peter morrell 13:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the source [2], please check it for yourself. I can't imagine a point that specific being incorrect can you? It is afterall Roy Strong talking about Roy Strong! what makes you so sure you are right? thanks Peter morrell 13:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, we don't have a published source for your claim; and it is highly likely that the dates in that article are correct. Why say he was 39, when in fact he was not 39 until august 1974? So I'm afraid the dates all look more correct for 74 than for 73. 1973 is more anomalous than 1974. In any case he maye have been AT the V & A in '73 but became it's director on January 1st '74. If I change it back I will put the source and the quote in ".." but if you find a good source then we can wait. I'm not in any hurry what do you reckon? thanks Peter morrell 14:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again BUT the V&A website says 1974! [3] so maybe Mr Pope Hennesey is wrong too! we now have 2 good sources saying 1974. over to you. Peter morrell 14:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is accurate. It would be better to say "he was officially appointed Director of the V & A [ref the 2 sources] 1 January 1974." BUT slight problemo..he wasn't 39 he was 38 at that date! so maybe we had better leave it for now; is that OK? we can't realistically change it at this stage unless we leave out his age! blimey! hope that's OK with you cheers. Peter morrell 14:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Nirvana

Hi I saw your edits on Nirvana (disambiguation) and Nirvana (Buddhism). You have deleted the references to Nirvana (Jainism) which may be construed as vandalism. However this may be not your intention or you may not be aware that Nirvana is one of the most important philosophical concept in Jainism. Also note that in view of similarity in the concepts of state of Nirvana in Jainism, Budhism and Hinduism, it is appropriate that the title for Buddhism article be kept as Nirvana (Buddhism) rather than Nirvana (state) for better understanding. If you are having any concerns, kindly discuss the issue on the discussion pages.--Anish (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You have raised some points which I have replied below:-

1. “Long established Status quo” – Please note wikipedia is not about “Status quo”. If that were the case, then, each and every edit would be reverted back. Even the featured articles are edited mercilessly. If you are looking out for a consensus , then you are welcome. Also note that consensus can change – WP:CCC
2. You statement – “Nirvana has always been associated with the original meaning” True. But, Nirvana is also a Jain concept. Probably Buddhists borrowed it from Jainas. Hence Nirvana should point out to “both” Jainsim and Buddhism concepts.
3. Your statement….. “No editor before you appears to have thought that the original meaning of the word Nirvana should not be the primary article associated with the word (ie the default page to which a reader goes rather than to a DAB page.)”….is not entirely true. If you had cared to look on the talk pages, then you would have noticed the following views of the other editors :-

• • http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nirvana_%28state%29&diff=170927374&oldid=169004900
  • http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nirvana_%28state%29&diff=175657678&oldid=172099964

It is clear that many (if not all) are looking for Band or music when they search for Nirvana and obviously get confused. For some like me who are from India, Nirvana” obviously is a philosophical concept. But think of the westerners and those, who are not familiar with Indian (and Asian) philosophical concepts.

In my opinion, Nirvana should be a DAB page. It does not weaken the original meaning in anyway. Let people be free to choose which meaning they want and not impose any meanings on anyone. I trust that you will take this in good faith.--Anish (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony Rezko picture with the Clintons

You've attempted to remove this picture from Tony Rezko twice, while recommending "discuss on Talk Page". Please, take the time to read the discussion yourself. Corey Salzano (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The Beatles discography

Hi - I attempted to execute some of your suggestions for improving the Beatles discography page. Particularly by creating an Official canon section. Hopefully the article can be taken from here and improved, rather than someone undoing my changes. We'll see. Thanks

The Deal

Only the supposed deal between Blair and Brown is "well-documented", whereas your version implies that there is concrete evidence it happened. It is only a myth! Secondly, please do not change the order the stars are credited. Thirdly please do not argue over the "television play" label when multiple reliable sources [4][5][6][7] describe it as such. Bradley0110 (talk) 06:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make about the deal taking place/not taking place is that the lead of The Deal (2003 film) article is not the place to go into detail about it. The Blair-Brown pact article is quite underdeveloped as it currently stands and if you're interested in an improvement collaboration then that would be great. As for the billing, well The Deal itself is the place. Morrissey is credited before Sheen and Peter Morgan wrote Brown as the main character. As for the "television play" business, Wikipedia is not a reliable source to cite. I suggest you get input at the television wikiproject. Bradley0110 (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've changed most of it back except for the "well-documented" part; regardless of whether or not the pact happened as described, you are right to say it is "well-documented". I suggest neither of us edits the article at all, pending further comment by members of the film and TV wikiprojects, as both of us are in danger of violating WP:3RR and edit warring. Bradley0110 (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my talk page is getting extra long! Would you mind if I pasted your last comment there into The Deal talk page so I can cut down the length of that one thread? Then we can continue there. Bradley0110 (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Secret Policeman

No problem. I just quickly added cats and moved it like the others as I patrolled it. Better than having tags plastered all over it ! Waterden (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing Nirvana pages

Appreciate you fixing them. A newbie editor (with presumably good intentions) had moved the Primary topic article to another name. And consequent DAB pages. I tried to fix -but when trying to restore original name I ran into "that name is in use so you cannot move an article to it" type alerts. At which point I left a message on the Nirvana Talk Page asking for an Admin to help fix it. Pleased that you fixed it. Thanks Davidpatrick (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no problem Davidpatrick. It's actually a coincidence. I didn't see your message on the talk page at all, I just happened to type en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Nirvana into the browser and came across the terrible double-redirect, just a few hours after you posted your request. I had to stare at it for a while to figure out which articles needed to be deleted to undo the bad move. Yuck. And yeah, it did require admin access. -lethe ^{talk +} 23:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Harvey Weinstein

Hi. While I may have neglected to mention the removal of unsourced materail in my previous Edit Summary, the legitimacy of edits are not predicated on perfectly accurate Edit Summaries. They're predicated on their adherence to Wikipedia policy. Including or reverting unsourced material in articles is a violation of Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. In addition, your blanket reversion also undid other changes unrelated to the sourcing issue, namely Weinstein's depiction on Entourage. He is not portrayed on that show, but rather, a character on that show is based on him, a distinction my previous edit addressed. It is also inappropriate to refer to an article subject by their first name, which I also edited. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding sources to the restored material. For me, the issue is one of Verifiability rather than proportionate "positive" vs. "negative', though I agree you were right to emphasize the alleged nature of some of the criticism. Good call on that. As far as the size of the Criticism section, it's naturally going to be determined at least in part by how much material there is to report. I notice, for example, that that section is composed of three different incidents/sources. The two paragraphs sourced to the Biskind book, which comprise the first of those three points, do take up quite a bit of space, but again, that's because a book naturally is going to contain a lot of material. The only thing I can think of is that perhaps those two paragraphs could be condensed somewhat in detail. The passage "Weinstein is painted as a control freak, a slob, and a liar." should be either sourced to specific page or quote, or removed immediately, since it could be seen as very inflammatory, and would need either paraphrasing, or a direct quote. The other info in that section contains details less pejorative and more relevant to his career, so I'm leaning toward removing it entirely.

Another thing: The MPPA's original rating of X for The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover and Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!, and Weinstein's suit against the MPAA over that, has no source. That should be removed, unless it can be sourced. Thanks for the feedback. :-) Nightscream (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Laurence Marks, Sunday Times journalist

You correctly point out that the sitcom writer is different from the journalist with the same name who died in 1996, but the sitcom writer did work for the Sunday Times as related in the 2006 tv programme Me, My Dad and Moorgate, see http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/820806 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_/ai_n16455000 http://www.shineonharveymoon.co.uk/page_921347.html and the imdb entry. Having watched the programme myself, I can say that the articles are an accurate reflection of what was said in the programme. As I wrote in the paragraph for the article, it was after the crash and his year-long investigation for the Sunday Times, that he quit journalism to become a full-time tv writer with Maurice Gran. Cjc13 (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Further evidence is provided by an 2002 article in the Independent based on an in-person interview, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/twos-company-647702.html , which describes Marks as a "former Sunday Times man". The interview you refer to was for a local Camden paper, so may be more interested in his work for a local rather than national paper. I also came across an article written by Laurence Marks in April 2006 about co-writing a book about Ruth Ellis in 1974. http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/1900,features,a-gentle-perfectionist-hangman The book is referred to in the wikipedia article on Ruth Ellis. This suggests more substance to his journalism than just being a cub reporter. Cjc13 (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have simply added back to the article the BFI reference as without it the paragraph has no references. The BFI page gives a synopsis of the programme and shows Laurence Marks himself as the main on-screen participant. This can be supported by the TV reviews in The Independent and the Guardian, both dated the day after transmission of the programme. Cjc13 (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The entry for Lawrence Marks in Who's Who 2008 includes the following:

"Trainee journalist, Thomson Regl Newspapers 1974; Reporter: N London Weekly Herald, 1975-77; Sunday Times 1975-76 (freelance) and 1978-79; This Week (TV current affairs prog.) 1977-78;"

This establishes that he did work for the Sunday Times before going on to write sitcoms.

As for the other Laurence Marks, from a comment by Donald Trelford in The Independent, Marks left the Sunday Times around Dec 1967, when the trial of Michael X was coming to an end, see Time magazine. Harold Evans referred to the relevant incident in his evidence to the Bloody Sunday inquiry, see Bloody Sunday Inquiry transcipts. Cjc13 (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The entry in Who's Who gives 2 periods of work for The Sunday Times. For the second period of work for the paper, 1978-79, there is no reference to freelance. Yes, the first period is indicated as freelance when he was working for both the weekly local paper and the Sunday Times, but there is evidence (see previous references) relating to the TV programme that he was working for the Sunday Times at the time of the crash (Feb 1975) and that he wrote about the inquiry into the crash and the official report published in Mar 1976 for the paper. Thus, as he had previously trained as a journalist and worked as a journalist on a weekly local paper and given the detailed chronology in the Who's Who entry, it seems reasonable to say that he worked as a journalist for the Sunday Times.

No one is claiming that he had a major career in journalism but it is part of his career before becoming a full-time sitcom writer. It is also relevant to the fact that his father died in the Moorgate crash, a significant event in his life as shown in the TV programme, and that Marks did an investigation for the Sunday Times of the crash and controversially reached a different conclusion to that of the official report. He wrote about his findings in the paper at the time of the official report in 1976.

"a theory that was extensively investigated and discounted by the official investigation and multiple subsequent reports." I am not aware of any source for this, so this should be deleted. The previous wording of the paragraph was sufficient. As the article for the Moorgate tube crash says, the DoE official report stated (at para 101): "the possibility that the collision was the outcome of a deliberate, suicidal act cannot be ignored, although there is no positive evidence to support it." There was only 1 official report of which I am aware and there were certainly not "multiple subsequent reports".

Clearly this is not related to the other Laurence Marks, so while it is reasonable to mention the confusion with other people with the same name, the use of the term urban myth seems unnecessary. Cjc13 (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Jindal

Hi, David - I noticed that you had reverted me on the lead sentence of this article with the edit summary "see talk page" - the only discussion I see there is this one, which seems to show consensus for the "Piyush 'Bobby' Jindal" version. Could you point me to the discussion you were referring to? Kelly ^hi! 22:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty tour names

Please see Talk:A Conspiracy of Hope Tour#Article name where this matter has come up again. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nirvana

Who is the cellist in the "Pentecost Hotel" TV performance? It looks like an Indian woman and certainly not Schuster. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to know a lot about Nirvana. Is Forever Changing simply a compilation? I have The Roots of Tommy, and it says that "Pentecost Hotel" is derived form that album, but it's not the same performance as on The Story of Simon Simopath--the most notable differences being the presence of a children's choir and the syncopation in the refrain. Are the other tracks on the album like that as well? If so, "compilation" is a misleading term if they are new recordings of songs from their catalog. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — Please comment R² 01:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Religion of MJ's children

I noticed some disagreement over the religion of MJ's kids. First of all, one of your edits mentioned that this information was notable if properly sourced, but the problem is that the sources were not proper (showbiz411? You have to be joking). Secondly, TMZ released photos of his kids attending a prayer session run by Jehovah's Witnesses. If they stay under the custody of Katherine, they will almost certainly not grow up Jewish. With all due respect to Jewish law, I don't think it matters here.UberCryxic (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Original research on The Boat That Rocked

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to The Boat That Rocked. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Award

I think you deserve this...

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		I award Davidpatrick this barnstar for working with others to improve the Pete Townshend article and reach a consensus on its content. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Huhne

I've started a thread at Talk:Chris Huhne#Children's names if you have anything to add. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a friendly heads up, by my count, you're at 3RR on Huhne, so you should probably take a step back for a while, perhaps work on another article. I know it sounds patronising, but it's good advice- nothing in that article is worth getting blocked over. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Dr David Kelly

I request that you cease turning this article into a one sided pov piece and take your issues to the article talk page to discuss before changing any more wording. Your edits are controversial.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Juan Williams

Thanks for checking up on that source, I thought the sources were solid enough already. I'm trying not to get too distracted from my pet project at the moment. I normally enjoy watching the left and right wings duke it out on wikipedia but now it's kinda fun in a morbid way watching the left throw one of their own under the bus. If they keep adding to that section though there may be concerns with WP:UNDUE soonish. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight on Juan Williams

Entire discussion moved to Talk Page for Juan Williams [8]

And, I've removed the entire discussion from the talk page of Juan Williams, because it does not belong there. Those comments were directed towards you and belong on user talk. If you feel the need to raise similar issues on the article talk page, you are free to do so provided you leave out the mention of any editors and only discuss how to improve the article. I notice that you once again declined to pay heed to my talk page edit notice which says, "As long as the entire discussion is preserved intact, I am generally flexible and open to a change of venue from one user talk page to another, or from a user talk page to an article or project talk page if it is deemed appropriate." Your move was not deemed appropriate. Please consult the relevant talk page guidelines if this isn't making sense to you. Viriditas (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

For the second time, we do not discuss other editors on article talk pages. Please use the article talk page to only discuss issues related to improving the article, leaving the discussion of contributors out of it. I'm a bit shocked that you've been here for so many years yet you still aren't familiar with basic guidelines and policies. Do not discuss other contributors on the article talk page. That is precisely what the user talk page is for. Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be confused about page archiving. You may visit Help:Archiving a talk page to learn more. Currently, Talk:Juan Williams/Archive 1 is accessible from the talk page header, per standard procedures. Your edit summary, claimed that this archiving was an "attempt to bury discussion form view", but is nothing of the sort; Old talk is archived on a subpage. If you have questions about how this works, feel free to ask. Discussions from 2007-2009 were old and inactive. It is helpful to archive and free up the page for current threads when threads die down. Of course, if there is something in that old discussion that needs to be addressed immediately, feel free to resurrect the old thread title, point to the original discussion in the archive, and start a new discussion on the current talk page. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

What part of "please don't move my comments to other talk pages without my permission" is giving you trouble? Viriditas (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Care to explain why you moved my comments to the talk page again after I asked you not to do so?[9] You also added a series of personal attacks in the section "Placing on record recent exchanges about the Juan Williams article". The article talk page isn't the place for that, and I'm asking you to remove it again. Please discuss topics related to improving Juan Williams and refrain from discussing contributors. Viriditas (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Juan Williams

Hi David, just to alert you that you're in danger of violating WP:3RR in case you've lost track, which is easily done. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Take better care next time with edits like this one. One of the sites you added is not reliable at all. NW (Talk) 04:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Songs Lennon and McCartney Gave Away

Please add a WP:RS for the info that you recently added on the 1971 version/release of this album. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Irene Khan

Thanks for your recent edit. You added some material that was from a source, but didn't say what the source was. You also added material that, as far as I can see, was unsourced (eg the 4% claim). If we want this material to stay on Wiki we should be careful to attribute it properly. In addition, please do not copy and paste material from websites (except direct quotes), eg you wrote, "He also said the board had considered it carefully and became convinced it was “in the best interest of Amnesty’s work”." This is a direct copy from the source and therefore a WP:COPYVIO. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You recently added: "The total payment of a total of UK £850,000 in ex-gratia payments to Khan and her deputy represents approximately 4% of the current annual budget of Amnesty which according to its most recent financial report is UK £21.9 million.[10] [11]". The first reference is WP:OR; we need to see that 4% figure quoted in a reliable source, not generated through your own analysis of AI's accounts; your second ref, a blog, is not an RS. Ericoides (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that the blog quotes the Sunday Times. I'm not sure what the position is regarding this as it is subscription only. Perhaps let the matter rest for a bit until we can see a verifiable RS making the 4% claim? Ericoides (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. You miss the point. The blog is our only source for the Sunday Times quote. Blogs are not reliable sources, and for all we know he could be making the quote up. What's the hurry? It will all come out eventually. Could you also format refs properly, not just in single brackets? Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Chris Huhne

Sorry. I'm calling you out on what you've done to the article for Chris Huhne. It was a godawful mess when I got there. I cleaned it up and you reverted my hard work! Cheers! You clearly have a POV on him - judging by the ridiculous levels of snidey commentary in his personal life sections - so I think it would probably be best if you focused on other articles. Thanks! Hurdygurley (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR Warning

Is a major policy on Wikipedia. Please be aware that you may be involved in a violation of it. If you have any doubts, it is likely that you should self-revert your last edits on Chris Huhne. If you are found in violation of the rule, you may be blocked by any administrator. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Abbey Road on the River Wiki page help

Hi -

You left the following comment for me on the Abbey Road on the River Discussion page. "Keep the content to truly notable matters not a comprehensive history of every past show and its performers and events. Such detail belongs on the event's official website - not on Wikipedia. Add sources from legitimate media. Sources that refer back to the official website of a commercial event that has a vested interest in promoting the event are not appropriate. Use respected third party unaffiliated sources to verify and reference the content and to justify its inclusion. Davidpatrick (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2011"

I have two questions for you:

1.) The articles I'm citing are from respected third parties unaffiliated with the music festival, however the articles have been archived on said newspaper websites (so I'm unable to link to them). Therefore, I linked to the specific articles found in the "press" section of Abbey Road on the River's official website. Is that still not acceptable even though the articles are legitimately (and originally) from a third party newspaper?

2.) The entire Abbey Road on the River wiki page was flagged as "written like an advertisement" in August 2010. I've made many changes to the page to make it from a neutral point of view. How can I have the page reviewed and (hopefully) have that flag removed?

Thanks so much for your help. It's very much appreciated!

MIA47MIA47 (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. You are definitely making improvements to the article. The answer to your first question is this: It is always best to try and link to a websource for the original media article. If you cannot find a source but the article is reproduced on the official website of the subject matter of the Wiki article I believe it is acceptable as long as it clear on that website what the original source was. ie it should give the name of the media outlet and the date it appeared in print or online. As to your second question, I will review the article soon - and will try to encourage one or two others to review it too - and if it seems okay then I will be happy to remove the "flag" Davidpatrick (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Great - thanks so much for the detailed response!

MIA4774.138.120.242 (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi - just wondering if you've had time to review the updated article? Would love the Advertisement "flag" removed if you feel it's appropriate. :) Thanks! MIA47MIA47 (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that there has been some additional rewriting and trimming of content that seemed more promotional than notable, plus the addition of verifiable sources, my opinion is that the advert flag can come down. So I've removed it. It will be important to ensure that the article stays encyclopedic so that no other editor or admin feels the need to flag it again. Davidpatrick (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Chimes of Freedom: Songs of Bob Dylan Honoring 50 Years of Amnesty International, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Silverstein (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Chimes of Freedom: Songs of Bob Dylan Honoring 50 Years of Amnesty International, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fontana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Sting (musical phrase) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sting (musical phrase) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sting (musical phrase) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 20:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited The Secret Policeman's Balls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Billington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michael Stevens (producer-writer-director)

The article Michael Stevens (producer-writer-director) has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have 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. Andrew Kurish (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Davidpatrick. You have new messages at GB fan's talk page.
Message added 02:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GB fan 02:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Michael Stevens

I didn't delete for lack of notability, but for the promotional tone. I've done two things now

• I've gone through and removed some of the more peacocky terms from what is still basically a hagiography.
• I've moved the page to Michael Stevens (producer). The title isn't supposed to me a potted biography, just enough to distinguish him from other people called Michael Stevens.

You could help your readers by replacing the bare url refs with a description — instead of just the url in the reference, put [url description] Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I moved it back from "(TV producer)" to "(producer)". I added "TV" to the disambig, because I saw much his producing was for TV specials. My apologies. QuasyBoy (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher

I undid your edit and commented in article talk that we would need a better source (the Daily Record is not a reliable source for this type of info!) to include anything of this. I am not against finding a compromise in talk if better sources can be found. Can they? --John (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I was about to add the BBC source with the same content when another editor added it. I have offered comments on the article Talk Page. Thank you for your civil approach to the matter. Davidpatrick (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Iron Lady (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Wells (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to A Conspiracy of Hope may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• One]] aired the concert as a live radio broadcast. Pre-taped [public service announcements]] about human rights by prominent figures in the entertainment world were presented on giant video

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Pete Townshend article

An administrator has proposed changes to the Operation Ore section. Please check in to give your opinion. Thanks! Pkeets (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Stevens, Jr., you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages A Place in the Sun, Giant and Shane. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Davidpatrick. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Davidpatrick. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Chimes of Freedom (album) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Jack Douglas and Mark Hudson

Instant Karma: The Amnesty International Campaign to Save Darfur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mark Hudson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Derrick O'Connor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Barbara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Davidpatrick. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Davidpatrick. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Obi (publishing) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Obi (publishing) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obi (publishing) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nightvour (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Will Botwin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Will Botwin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Botwin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

AlexTheAwkward (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)