Jump to content

User talk:Anthony Bradbury/Archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! Hello, Anthony Bradbury/Archive1, 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:

Hello, Anthony Bradbury/Archive1, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

It looks like you've been very active in the last few days! I have one request: could you please provide your reference(s) for Zone of immunity? Cheers, Melchoir 05:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the main page describing citations is Wikipedia:Citing sources, but it's kind of geared towards experienced users. You certainly don't need to insert footnotes into Zone of immunity. In practice, you can just replace the {{unreferenced}} tag at the bottom with a description of your source, and don't worry about getting the formatting right! I can always help with the cosmetics. Melchoir 18:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've replied on my own talk page. Melchoir 00:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dad, sorry to be dim. I thought this might be the only way to leave messages, but it seemed rather rude somehow! Have you seen the page on Jackie Fisher? looks rather sparse on the details of the great man. Perhaps you'd like to have a go? Davidelit 16:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've replied on my talk page - I wasn't sure if this was the appropriate place. Scyrene 19:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like my response has been pre-empted, as most of those pages have been deleted. It's a shame nobody else was as thoughtful as you, since noone else asked why I created them. Such speed! Scyrene 19:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks very much for your messages. I was rather upset about the roads thing, so I decided to cool off and not log-in for a while. I don't know whether the articles were worthy or not, but appreciate the fresh perspective all the comments gave me. I was too close to the project to really be objective. Anyway, I will continue to contribute - but in slightly less controversial, and more complete ways! Scyrene 19:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

[edit]

Thank you for clearing up that rule of spelling variations for me. I was unaware that such a rule existed. However, I'm now curious as to why you changed "favor" to "favour" in the first place if, as you explained to me, such a change was unneeded. Adamc714 17:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to give the impression that I wanted to fight over such a small and insignificant thing - I was merely curious. Sorry for the confusion.Adamc714 20:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course - feel free. Stub articles are only placeholders anyway, I feel; "here is a couple of lines summarising the article that will eventually replace it". Good luck! (Incidentally, I note you created Defence Class; the standard form for naming these is Defence class battleship, and I've moved the article. The link you had for Warrior class went to an article on some warrior caste somewhere...) Shimgray | talk | 21:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've given it a copyedit; some explanations. You don't need to link to the article itself inside the article; this just gets confusing for editors. The introduction should be in a broadly standard form ("X" is/was a "Y" of "Z"), before moving onto the history. Ship names should be, if possible, italicised - you can do this with links like [[HMS Whatever|HMS ''Whatever'']]. Otherwise, looks good to me. Shimgray | talk | 10:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - no need to ask permission. (If you want to doing some from scratch, we've almost none on the various Admiral class battleships, & they're weird enough they seem to deserve articles!)... Shimgray | talk | 18:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Royal Oak

[edit]

You are more than welcome to rewrite the article, and thank you very much for asking. Have a nice day and happy wiki'ing! Johann Wolfgang 03:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Swiftsure (1870)

[edit]

Hello, Tony!

Having chanced upon your recent post on Johann Wolfgang's talk page, I thought you might appreciate being informed of the existence of the HMS Swiftsure (1870) stub. This item has a curious history; when I came across it a few weeks ago, I discovered that the ship described in it was an entirely different vessel of the same name, lanched in 1903. I therefore created a new article and copied the existing text across. From what you told Johann Wolfgang, the 1870 ship should be right up your street.

Can I also take the opportunity to thank you for taking up the baton for ironclads and "pre-Dreadnoughts". Coverage of these fascinating ships is sparse in Wikipedia (I would like to work on them, but I don't have the expertise). I have added this page to my watchlist.


Hope this is useful.

Regards, John Moore 309 16:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo sources

[edit]

It's always hard to tell quite when an old photograph is in copyright and when it isn't; UK law is very confusing in this regard, and there's no reliable rule as to whether or not republishing something affects it.

The US Naval Historical Center has an online gallery of public-domain images; most of these are of course American, but there's a few foreign ships in there. This has the British ones, which offhand seems to include about half-a-dozen ships of the period. If you upload any of these, mark them as {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC}}.

The Imperial War Museum has a photograph database, but the copyright status varies. Per this, any of them listed as "Crown copyright" and dated to before 1955 can be freely reused. If you upload any of these, mark them as {{PD-BritishGov}}. Not all of them have digital images attatched, either.

Those are the first two web sources that spring to mind - if you have any old books with images, it may well be legal to scan these, depending on the details. Let me know if you have any trouble uploading images. Shimgray | talk | 19:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Albert

[edit]

Come to think of it, I'm not sure why I linked Victoria there but didn't link through to Albert... fixed now, anyway. Thanks for putting these articles up - it's interesting reading, and nice to see decent content going up. Shimgray | talk | 23:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

[edit]
Updated DYK query On November 14, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Ocean (1862), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Lorenzo

[edit]

Hi Anthony! You commented on the link that I removed from the Lorenzo de' Medici page. Yes, I still think it served no purpose. Even if the English translator decided to mention Lorenzo's name in the title of the book, of course the book is not really about him but the city. If Machiavelli's views on the Medici are important, one could instead expand the article itself and summarize them in a few words. In fact I could do this myself. But it should be noted that Machiavelli's views on Lorenzo may tell us more about Machiavelli than they tell us about Lorenzo.

However, if you think that the link ought to be restored, I think that at the very least it should be changed to point to the chapter of the book in which Machiavelli actually talks about Lorenzo. timo 08:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ettiquette

[edit]

For metric/imperial - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement boils down to "using either is no big deal". Whilst the numbers were never used in the period, it is more useful to many readers (especially Europeans) to give a size in metres - it should be given as a converted figure, in brackets, since it's not the original source, but there's no harm in leaving it in if it's not excessive.

(This makes more sense when you consider, say, articles on classical antiquity - our articles would be very confusing for the reader if we avoided putting (X miles) after saying that something was however many stadia long.)

Unless the converted figures are wrong or just oddly misleading (like putting a kg weight after "24-lb gun"), it's probably considered rude to revert. Might be best to check they're not spuriously accurate, too (like giving a two-decimal-point conversion of a rounded figure). Shimgray | talk | 20:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dimensions

[edit]

You left this message on my talk page, but it is not related to an edit I made -- probably an edit just befor or just after one of mine !! --mervyn 21:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: [ Hi: If you really think that metric measurements on Victorian ships need to be inserted then you are entitled to your opinion; I have the figures but chose not to put them in, as they were never measured in metric, and translation serves no purpose. The size of the White Ensign was intentional.--Anthony.bradbury 19:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC) ]

Images

[edit]

Save a copy of the image to your machine, then follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Uploading images. Remember to add a description when you upload the file (in case anyone stumbles across the image by accident and gets confused), and to add a tag as mentioned above. Shimgray | talk | 19:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is this better!!lou 11:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the article about the Balanced rudder. Could you please add a reference to it, so that people who are interested in the topic could see where to go for further information? Also, I noticed that you used the spelling "foreward". Is this a nautical usage, or should it be "forward" instead? TruthbringerToronto 23:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useful books

[edit]

Anthony, I've just been enjoying some of your recent articles. I see your are mostly working from the two standard sources, Conway’s and Parkes . Can I recommend a couple of other useful books to back them up?

  • DK Brown “Warrior to Dreadnought: Warship Development 1860-1905”. Caxton Editions 2003. ISBN 1-84067-5292. An excellent study by the world’s expert, with a huge amount of previously unpublished information.
  • EHH Archibald The Fighting Ship in the Royal Navy 1897-1984 (Blandford, 1984), ISBN 0-71371-3488. Although not 100% reliable this remains a rich source of information and an excellent read. Its best feature are the hull profiles, which show the underwater hull; absurdly, the Conway’s drawings are cut off at the waterline.

Both these books appear to be out of print, but you should be able to get them from Amazon here and here (if these links don’t work, a Google search should do the trick).

Hope this is useful. Regards, John Moore 309 22:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John: thank you for your suggestion, which I shall follow through on. As I get to ships of a later period, I shall also start quoting Jane, but he does not quite go back far enough.--Anthony.bradbury 22:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony: You may already be aware of this, but Jane's should be used with caution. The editors were largely dependent on information released at the time by the navies which owned the ships, and this was sometimes misleading (often deliberately). For example, no navy would willingly advertise the fact that its ships were breaking treaty limits! In addition, some navies (especially Japan and the USSR) were secretive as a matter of course. Figures for speeds are particularly suspect; in many navies (notably Italy), prodigious speeds were obtained on trials by such expedients as pre-cleaning the coal, embarking only enough fuel to complete the trial and disembarking the ammunition! For factual accuracy, Conway's will be more reliable.
On the other hand, the very fact that Jane's presents a contemporary view, without hindsight, gives it a value of its own (editions prior to 1941 famously say of Hood that "her protection is extremely comprehensive").
Regards, John Moore 309 15:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS This page is on my watchlist, so you can reply here if you prefer.

John: I did, of course know that Jane was dependent on data provided by the naval services of the period; as witness Bismark at 35,000 tons, Graf Spee at 10,000 tons, etc. Possibly there was more honesty in the 19th century; in any case, one tries to use as many sources as possible and separate fact fron fiction.

HMS Royal Oak

[edit]

The article looks substantially better than the one I had written. Very nice. Keep up the good work. If you ever need help, information, etc, please feel free to ask. Have a nice day! Johann Wolfgang 14:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. Happy Wiki'ing.

Cereberes class

[edit]

Appreciate the immediate attention to my concern. I look foward to seeing the results. One of my major interests is ships. Cheers V. Joe 21:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC) AB: Thanks for the interest, again, although my knowledge is a little more aimed at ships of the USN, since I grew up in the literal shadow of the USN in Virginia Beach. I've got some books at home, and when I get there, I'll be sure to add some on ships. My question about the Cerebus class and the Monitor is the story of how the RN managed to get these secrets from the USN. Given the lukewarm support that the UK had given towards the Confederacy and the Fenian Uprising in Canada, I doubt the US govt. and HM Government were on speaking terms. If you knew anything about that, I'm sure that we could collaborate in some way. Cheers V. Joe 22:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M&c

[edit]

Would you like to look at, and improve, the article called M&c comics?--Anthony.bradbury 23:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Monarch

[edit]

Thanks. I discovered that piece of trivia while working on some of the United States ships' history. Jinian 15:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scapa Flow

[edit]

The article on Scapa_Flow looks rather sparse, despite the link. By the way, if you're bored, check out Constitution_of_Indonesia. Davidelit 04:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome message

[edit]

You (accidentally, I assume) left User:WJHC a welcome message on their user page, not their user_talk page. I've fixed it. Please be careful. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Anthony: You are familiar with the French language and on that basis, perhaps you may want to help me out. I should be more familiar with French, having spent several summers there when I was young, but that ended 30+ years ago.

I have left a message on a French wikipedia talk page: http://fr.wiki.x.io/wiki/Discuter:R%C3%A9gression_et_d%C3%A9gradation_des_sols. In it I point out that, without verifiable sources the English WP version of the article will be no more. Could you review my wording? And, if so moved, provide a translation on the same page? Hopefully my choice of recognizeable words makes translation unnecessary. I used terminate instead of merge, but I think it is a workable alternative in this case. -- Paleorthid 17:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It looks like you recently commented on this discussion, but the comment ended up on the article itself. Cheers TigerShark 23:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we all! :) I was referring to this edit, I could have moved it myself - but didn't want to appear presumptuous. Cheers TigerShark 23:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I just wondered is you are familiar with the Articles for Deletion process. The article in question has been nominated for deletion via that process and, although you are welcome to place your delete comment on the article's talk page, it will not be considered as part of the deletion process unless it is on the AfD discussion page for the article. Cheers TigerShark 00:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh OK, I see. Well if you do want to comment the link is in the header for this discussion. I haven't reverted your change to the article. Cheers TigerShark 00:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please comment on the request for deletion for Mothers against decapentaplegic homolog 2. I would like to create more pages in the SMAD family of proteins and would like the reason for the nomination.GAThrawn22 01:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SMAD protein family

[edit]

Yes, the articles are indeed simmilar, since all the proteins are in the same family. There are eight such proteins. One of the goals of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology is to classify all proteins and serve as a portal to the wealth of information the web. The articles that I'm creating are just stubs. With the hope for future expansion. I will create a single article describing the family of proteins and their general functions. However, the individual protein pages are necessary since they all have different functions and (though some of them simmilar) all have different sets of links. When the articles are completed hopefully that will be expanded on. A single article, including all the proteins would probably be too big (larger than the recommended size for wikipedia article) and would not be consistent with the goals of the project. Much of the varying information can be found in the protein boxes. The general text of the article is just an introduction (as is required to make a stub) and that explains the similarity. In addition, wikipedia, does not allow redirects to specific sections in an article. A person looking up information on a particle SMAD would most like likely search for SMAD5 for example (rather than "Mothers against decapentaplegic homolog 5"). The person would have to sift through a large article just to find the information they are looking for.

My particular interest is in developmentally important molecules and I do believe that there is a wealth of information about many of these proteins that will eventually show up with user contributions.

I have just created a new page, but I did not notice that I had incorrect capitalization on the surname. How might I change that? hmiimd 12:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decapentaplegic, is a transforming growth factor beta protein involved in dorsal ventral polarity specification (determination of front and back) in the fruit fly Drosophila. Mothers against decapentaplegic (MAD) another protein in drosophilla was discovered, that when mutated, opposes decapentaplegic in the embryo. During that time period, there was no systematic method for naming proteins, consequently, researchers named proteins in clever, or silly or cute ways. They name MAD "Mothers against decapentaplegic" to describe its action - (oppose decapentaplegic by the mother) and to play on the commonly known Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The homolog of the drosophila protein was later discovered in humans and was named systematically as "Mothers against decapentaplegic homolog X". There are 8 such homologs in humans so X represents the number of the homolog. I hope that sheds some light on the origin of the name. If you have anymore questions feel free to ask. --GAThrawn22 23:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re. your Tolfenamic acid query

[edit]

Hi Anthony, My quick search suggests that its main use is to relieve migraines. One commercial name is Clotam® Rapid. Yours in slightly diminishing ignorance Nunquam Dormio 13:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of User:DeadZaku

[edit]

Hey Anthony! Thanks for all your work on new page patrol! I was just curious why you nominated User:DeadZaku for speedy deletion; I imagine it was just browsing through pages too quickly, but I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a reason it should be deleted that I may have missed. Thanks! EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 01:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, we all do that ocassionally. Keep up the good work. :o) EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 01:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Translation

[edit]

You certainly can use this, as long as you are certain that the article exists in another language Wikipedia. If it doesn't, then it goes to the translation page. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention, and I expect you will sort the matter out--File Éireann 12:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime warfare task force

[edit]

Tony,

Good news: Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) has recently created the Maritime warfare task force as part of the Military History project. Bad news: so far, it has only three members (the worst news is that one of them is me).

I think this would be a good forum for discussing of maritime warfare/naval history, exchanging ideas and establishing best practice at a more general level than the Ships project. If you are interested, can I suggest you pay a visit and, if you like what you see, sign up?

Regards, John Moore 309 16:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AU

[edit]

yes i do there are EU countries where AU countries should be hopefully people can help me change that User:Briaboru politics has nothing to do with it, it would seem that the more people know that this page is here the greater chance it would be revised. User:Briaboru

medical diagnosis and procedures classification

[edit]

I am a logician specialising in the Rypka method of optimal classification which was designed for dynamic classification of microbes but which can be applied to other medical topics and fields. I am interested is using it to classify procedures for practitioners. If you are interested please respond. ...IMHO (Talk) 00:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]

When you nominate articles for speedy deletion (as you did with Alexa B. Roggeveen), please ensure you inform the page creator via their talk page. Regards, Proto///type 00:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

[edit]

You probably just used the same IP address that the vandal did, IP addresses do change, your ISP determines how often. I would like to stress this was an auto-block, AmiDaniel had no idea he blocked you. Overall I would suggest you don't worry about it, if you have the problem again, put the full text of the pink block message on your talk page, as well as {{unblock|I believe I have been auto-blocked}} on your talk page and an admin will come clear it up for you. However, I think this happening again would be unlikely. Prodego talk 17:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Tony

[edit]

No, I didn't create the article - I was the admin who deleted it! And unregistered people can't create new articles any more... I think it changed about 3 months ago. It's not a policy to inform people, and don't bother if it's obviously vandalism, but it's good form if they honestly intended to create a real article, and didn't understand what is and isn't suitable. Regards, Proto///type 17:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jim MacNeill article has sources, which check out, and confirm notability - so it needs flagging for wikifying and cleanup. Creating an article on yourself, even if you're encyclopedic, is frowned on. See WP:VAIN. I'll have a word with the creator. Thanks Tony. Proto///type 18:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viipuri castle

[edit]

Kindly erase your "speedy deletion" request from Viipuri castle. Had you not been so rapid in adding such (and also caused an edit conflict to me), it would have been unnecessary, as there is fullness of text now. Suedois 23:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SMADs (Mothers against decapentaplegic)

[edit]

I'd like to note that the SMAD articles are not identical. They may look identical as they currently contain little information apart from the protein template. However, SMADs are family of proteins with quite diverse roles. It may be the case that not every SMAD deserves a page, but those that do, deserve their own article. TGF beta signaling pathway is perhaps a unifying article for all SMADs, but each one of them deserves it's own description. Peter Z.Talk 13:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Riau
East Nusa Tenggara
HMS Cornwallis (1901)
Land battleship
List of ship launches in 1904
South Sumatra
James Martin (premier)
List of ship launches in 1901
Bengkulu
Central Kalimantan
South Kalimantan
List of ship launches in 1898
HMS Hibernia (1804)
HMS A10
West Nusa Tenggara
Jambi
Lampung
HMS A6
List of Danish steam battleships
Cleanup
Purchasing power parity
William A. Webb
Revenue
Merge
Central Powers
List of French steam battleships
Camilo Castelo Branco
Add Sources
Melanesia
Ass to mouth
Mansfield Smith-Cumming
Wikify
Robert Kingston Scott
List of mayors of Anderson, Indiana
Pony down crew
Expand
Wizard of Oz (1925 film)
Ninja Gaiden
Burakumin

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


South African military commanders

[edit]

Thanks for your message. I'll be expanding some of the articles in due course, but for most the only info I have right now are the basic dates and senior appointments held. Dirk L 18:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I stubbed the article because it only had two words. Even though it may be under construction it can still be classed as a stub until any content is added. If you want to create new articles before actually adding them to the encylopedia as nearly empty pages you can create new pages under your user page, e.g. User:Anthony.bradbury/Ajax_class_battleship then create the article and copy and paste the content when your done.--Andeh 19:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AH, OK, sorry about that. If I end up in an edit conflict (I hate them too) I hit the back button and copy the text then paste it in the current version.--Andeh 20:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! :-)--Andeh 21:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, looks like a lot of work. Certainly keep ya busy! Sorry I don't show a huge interest in battleships though they are quite magnificent feats of engineering. Though if you want any assistance with wiki-formatting drop me a message.--Andeh 21:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that notion! NVid 23:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican City Alcohol

[edit]

Thanks for the information. Vatican City is now back on the top of my list of places to roister. I was also informed by another helpful user that I could have just turned up to a mass and helped myself to some wine. Ah, the wonder of hindsight. --Roisterer 05:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images and how to

[edit]

On my talk page you mentioned not being sure of how to use images on wikipedia. I suggest you review Wikipedia:Uploading images as well as Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. Basically you just have to upload the images first to the wikipedia server before they can be displayed on the site, hence you cannot display an image that is hosted off the wikimedia servers on wikipedia. Now the two major things to remember when uploading: 1) always give the source of your material and 2) be sure that you use the correct license for the image, most of which can be found at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Failure to cite a source, or use the correct tag, might result in that image being deleted. Please let me know if I can answer any specific questions that you might have. Oh and don't worry about my userboxes, they seem fine now, it might just be a server issue. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 15:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Poppelt

[edit]

Hey, thanks for the heads-up about Poppelt. He seems to have lost interst at the moment in creating nonsense articles, but I'm keeping an eye on him if he decides to resume this behavior. Fabricationary 01:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the speedy tag from this article and cleaned it up a little. This is a notable Indian actor.--John Lake 20:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is a notable Indian actor [1] which is what I put criteria on and is to appear in a new US movie Shantaram. I was just informing you so you would now what happened. Thanks.--John Lake 21:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to google he is a notable Bangladeshi film industry and Bollywood actor. You can prod or afd, it is up to you I have done about all I can with the article and tagged it with a cleanup.--John Lake 21:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem and thanks for your patience.--John Lake 21:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This band doesn't meet the CSD, and it seems to meet WP:MUSIC. I'm going to clean-up the page a bit. Feel free to take whatever further action (AfD, notability tag) you feel is necessary.--Kchase02 T 21:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there; OK, if you feel that {{band}} does not apply, I am not going to argue. Please excuse me for asking, because your userpage does not say: are you an admin?--Anthony.bradbury 21:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back at the article, I cannot imagine why you feel that {{band}} is not appropriate. It still seems so to me. If you are an admin, ok. If not, please quote your authority for over-riding my opinion.--Anthony.bradbury 21:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin, but just b/c someone is an admin (or even a bureaucrat) doesn't mean their interpretations of policy are necessarily authoritative. In any case, CSD A7 (which db-band seems to stem from) is for things with no assertion to notability. GSW has two albums by Mercury and other indendent albums and has been on nation-wide tours. And so it seems to meet WP:MUSIC, the relevant notability guideline. If you still want to take it to AfD or slap a notability tag on the page, feel free. I'll vote keep per my reasoning here, but it's nothing personal.--Kchase02 T 21:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back at my last messages, it looks as if i'm being bloody-minded. That was not my intention, and I take your point about published albums. I will shut up now. Not trying to be awkward.--Anthony.bradbury 21:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're fine. Don't be so hard on yourself! We all learn the relevant policies and guidelines eventually, and it's often faster to do so by stumbling around and making a few mistakes and occasionally stepping on toes. That's how I learned!--Kchase02 T 21:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You.--Anthony.bradbury 21:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Feel free to approach me with questions. I'm not experienced enough to do full-fledged editor mentorship, but I'm happy to help where I can.--Kchase02 T 23:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military History project

[edit]

No significance in particular, I just got around to marking the pages I happened to have listed, and these were two of them!

Basically, the tag is useful for infrastructure purposes - once the articles are marked, the project knows they exist, it can look at them, rate them, and so forth. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment does a decent job of explaining the process behind it. It's not something that's likely to get acted on soon, or needs anything to be done now, but it is something that will probably help in the long run. Shimgray | talk | 21:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Encyclopedia is public domain

[edit]

Catholic Encyclopedia is public domain. Cutler 18:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob! In fact, you might want to help sort some of the messy articles around Seal of the Confessional and priest-penitent privilege.Cutler 18:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

[edit]

I noticed that you tagged the page Schoolgirl pin for speedy deletion with the reason "No value. Not encyclopedic". However, "No value. Not encyclopedic" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there: OK, point taken. But I note that a proposal for deletion message is still affixed to the article, and as it's a rubbish article that's fine by me. Apologies for not choosing correct procedural format.--Anthony.bradbury 23:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apolgize, I'm happy that you've learned something today :) Stifle (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On an article such as this, if I feel that deletion is appropriate, should I then hang on to it a {{dated prod}} flag?--Anthony.bradbury 00:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, use {{subst:prod|reason}}. Stifle (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles

[edit]

I have now de-red-linked Constitution of Indonesia and written Supersemar. Any comments gratefully appreciated. Davidelit 08:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devastation

[edit]

Sorry for the slow reponse, I've been internetless for awhile. Feel free and re-work the article.--YanA 02:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

denmark

[edit]

I don't know the answer to your question. If we go by territory under the sovereignty of Denmark then I guess it is. Is Greenland part of Denmark or is it considered a separate country? --Polaron | Talk 23:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete

[edit]

People don't get the *manner* in which I create articles. I build them in pieces, slowly over a few hours. So they tag my articles for deletion because they're too *explitive deleted* impatient :) Wjhonson 23:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of underconstruction before, so now I've added that. Thanks. Wjhonson 00:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

The most common reason to know the name of an image is because you uploaded it yourself under that name, or because you've found it in another page and checked the title. As a general rule, there aren't many images on Wikipedia *proper* which have been uploaded "on spec"; there may well be some on Wikimedia Commons, though, since people are in the habit of uploading huge swathes of images to there.

Images on Commons can be used normally, in the same way as Wikipedia images - ie, [[Image:Name.jpg|thumb|right|Description]] - so you can make full use of them. Images on there also tend to be sorted by topic, if a bit patchily; try having a look through commons:Category:Royal Navy ships and commons:Category:Naval ships of the United Kingdom to see if you can use anything there.

Let me know if you need a demonstration of how to use an image once you've found a suitable one. Shimgray | talk | 08:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prabir Mehta

[edit]

I removed your prod tag from Prabir Mehta's user page. Since it is a user page, notability really shouldn't apply. It was originally a normal page but I userfied it 20 or so minutes before you added the prod tag. Just a heads up. Dipics 20:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dating prods

[edit]

I noticed that you added a {{dated prod}} tag to an article without giving a date (I have added it). Please add dates to proposed deletions in future; the easiest way is by using {{ subst:prod|reason }}. --ais523 13:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

SSSIs

[edit]

Hi. SSSI stands for Site of Special Scientific Interest. Regards SP-KP 12:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, by the way, but I gotta mention a couple of problems with the Prodding of the above article:

1) Answers.com is a Wikipedia mirror, meaning that its content comes from Wikipedia (legally), so it's not a copyvio.

2) Copyvios are dealt with using two different processes.

a) If the violation occurs within 48 hours and comes from a "commercial content provider" (a definition I notice that some admins stretch a bit), then it's a speedy deletion -- {{db-copyvio|URL}} is the tag.
b) If the violation is older than that, you're supposed to go through WP:CP and follow its steps.

So I'm afraid I'm going to modify the tag and change its reason. I'd remove it and save the option of tagging it as such later (depending on whether the article creator actually coughs up some reliable sources, which I highly doubt), but some editors are a sticklers for process and would likely remove a second applicatopon of the tag. Just so you know what I'm doing. --Calton | Talk 13:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, looks like I got your note while I was busy typing on your talk page. Sorry about the crossed signals. --Calton | Talk 13:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's usually not very obvious unless you read the tiny print at the bottom of (most) mirror pages. --Calton | Talk 13:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese measures page

[edit]

I randomly copied about ten words from the article and entered it into Google, resulting in the link that I placed on the page (that didn't show up, arg). It's not so much that it's a copyright violation - I think the page could stand to be deleted on various accounts - nonsense being one of them, or if speedy fails, prod or afd for "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball/how-to manual" reason. I'll go edit the tag to a more suitable one. Thanks for the heads up. Fabricationary 23:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

[edit]

Hi Tony, It's only worth linking date like entities in a very few contexts.

  1. Where the date is itself important - so that there is value in following the link - decreasingly often as WP grows.
  2. When the text is about the entity e.g. a link to 2000 or 2001 in The Millennium.
  3. When a date includes a day and month, which means formatting preferences will be invoked by linking it, e.g. 10 April 1962.
  4. There is also the process of linking to "[Year] [month] in <subject>" via a piped link, e.g. 1999 in television as 1999 - this eventually can suffer the same problem as the first point, and is seen by some as an undesireable Easter egg - i.e. taking the user to a difernt place than expected.

See WP:DATE for details, and the talk page for 48 archived pages of wrangling over the exact meaning of "links valuable in context" and "the correct use of the non-breaking space" or "the endash".

Hope this helps, Rich Farmbrough 22:05 15 July 2006 (GMT).

Charlie the Snake

[edit]

Yes, but I'm not an admin. There are at least eight of these sockpuppets. Some of them have been blocked; some of them, not yet. —Caesura(t) 21:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Tasty, small, healthy, cheap, and easy to carry around and eat. And cute and fuzzy to boot. What's not to like? (Actually, I just thought my user page needed a touch of idiosyncracy to spice it up. Or sour it up, as the case may be.) I'm actually not in Edinburgh anymore (really should get around to updating my user page), but I loved it! Probably my favourite city I've ever lived in. —Caesura(t) 22:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Absolutely nothing wrong with Kiwi fruit. Just appears to be unique userbox; which you perhaps intended.--Anthony.bradbury 23:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholicism

[edit]

Hi: am I no longer able to have, on my user page, a userbox saying I am interested in Roman Catholicism? Mine has changed to a link to your userpage, which persists if I re-insert {{User rc}}. Why is this ?--Anthony.bradbury 18:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthony.bradbury. Yes, you can. Because of all the "hard redirects" to Template:user rc, I made it a "soft redirect" to the new location so folks could make their own choices about how to change it. Check the RC template page for some alternatives. Rfrisbietalk 21:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airport 05'

[edit]

Done. Gwernol 01:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony actually put a notice on the page saying it was not to be recreated. He did not write the article. Danny 22:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Ticktin

[edit]

Hi,

You added a cleanup notice to the page but haven't explained what needs to be fixed. Please advise. Thanks.

Sorry, I should have proofread.

I think I've gotten them all. Is there any sort of automatic spellchecker feature on here that I can use?

It's my first article.

No, I haven't.

Thanks

Dreadnoughts & medicine

[edit]

Hi, I came across your name on recent good Osgood-Schlatter disease edit. Per chance have you a good reference to cite re surgical intervention (e.g. of % cases needing this) ?

I see from your user page that you have an interset in Dreadnought battleships - I sorted out the previous mess of London Lock Hospital (1st STD clinic) from Albert Dock Seamen's Hospital (1st tropical disease hospital), not helped by much of the rest of the internet copying wp's own mixups. Main history given at Seamen's Hospital Society but in summary The Albert Dock hospital was one stage in the evolution of decomissioned Dreadnought ship to dry land and onwards to both Dreadnought Unit at St Thomas' Hospital, Hospital for Tropical Diseases and London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. I could only find a limited number of sources (see Seamen's Hospital Society) for info on the Dreadnought battleship involvement in this process (eg switch from lepper to tropical disease use, dates of mooring up at different sites and decomissioning of ship vs end of hospital roles). Have you any additional info to add to this ? Yours David Ruben Talk 01:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


DeQuervain's teno-vaginitis

[edit]

I just noted after an anonymous user corrected it that when you were expanding the DeQuervain's syndrome page, you typed "teno-vaginitis" instead of "teno-synovitis!" I just wanted to let you know that it gave me a chuckle! BTW, great work on the spondylolisthesis page. I think that was probably the best explanation that I've read of the disease! InvictaHOG 12:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I briefly considered the alternative vaginitis explanation (tunica vaginalis, etc) but then dismissed it as just outright absurd! Thanks for clearing it up - you can obviously revert it if you'd like - InvictaHOG 23:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only wish that we were to the point that it was hard to find things to write about. I swear there is just too much to know in medicine! InvictaHOG 23:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relax

[edit]

in response to your comment An article containing simply the single word "hello" may be regarded as vandalism. Please write sensible articles or write nothing.--Anthony.bradbury 14:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I was demonstrating the process of entering an article to our PR staff. I was explaining how wikipedia works. Was rapidly re-edited

History- of the edits on this page. I used our organizations boilerplate description of the Library. But wikipedia uses some automated process to verify the content versus the web. Since the library and university use the same boiler plate text on their web site.

The site was marked for rapid deletion for copyright problems. I commented that I essentially owned the copy right. Still pulled down article.

The word "hello" appeared for only enough time to indicate that the article could be edited. Since the PR staff has the same boilerplate text, they wrote it. We could not use their text as it would be deleted again. So I simply added a link to the library home page.

My co-worker stated you should get a job. If you have the time to sit and monitor wikipedia articles and post a comment instantly you must not have anything more important.

I however realize there must be some automated process to capture this type of event. You simply responded to prompt.

The article is being rewritten now. Your comment arrived after the edit(removing 'hello') was already done. rdegler

Tom Maloney

[edit]

Hello, your tag for WP:SPEEDY on this article gave the reason as a lack of importance. This was clearly not the case. The author asserted in the first sentence and in the edit summary reasons for significance. So the page obviously does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion under the reasons you specified, and thus the tag needed to be removed. I didn't have to wait for an admin to do so because I did not create the page. The page does require sources, and I added a tag requesting them, and a cleanup. I also agree edit wars are silly. KnightLago 00:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also make a fair point. I have not removed your proposal for deletion for lack of sourcing because I think you are correct. I also agree that just becasue importance is claimed does not make it important. But I doubt very much that either one of us knows anything about the history of igloos. The author deserves the chance to prove their claims, hopefully they can provide sources they did not create. If he can't, the article should be deleted. KnightLago 01:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. KnightLago 01:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the stub, i wasn't sure what it required.--I'll bring the food 01:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto

[edit]

I'm just about to save ep 196, so that means 4 more new pages and the spam will end. I still have some minor edits to do to existing pages, but shouldn't be too bad. -- Meersan 22:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand! No problem. -- Meersan 22:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr crowe's educational services

[edit]

I don't know if you already know, but tagging an article with {{db-advert}} doesn't add it to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. If you want and admin to look at it, you'll have to add a different db- tag. Regards, Mr Stephen 22:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You made a very reasonable assumption. There's a bit of chat about it on the talk page for WP:CSD & some links in there. Regards, Mr Stephen 22:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a very short and blatant advert, some admins will delete it with a {{Db-nocontent}} tag. Spammers often copy text from a website, and you can try {{db-copyvio}}. The more persistent keep coming back, so check the logs to see if it's been through AfD, and if it has use {{db-repost}}. Otherwise, an article of any length needs to go to prod & AfD. Regards Mr Stephen 22:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

My apologies, I thought I was helping out that Red Link Project thing I joined. I'm still new here, looking for a niche. Can you help? User To Be Named Later 15:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks For Letting Me Know

[edit]

I'll add them in a bit, I have to go to work now, but thanks for letting me know. Also, I hope you don't mind that I added your Roman Empire box to my page, I also like Roman history, i'm actually watching HBO's Rome right now. User To Be Named Later 15:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Najeedah

[edit]

I userfied the article, so there's no need to speedy the userpage. Thanks. NawlinWiki 21:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could well have been an article when you saw it if I was in the middle of userfying. No big deal. Thanks, NawlinWiki 21:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

[edit]

Hi, I have created a userbox for you. Just copy the text that follows in its entirety in edit mode, or delete it if you don't want it. Davidelit 11:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user lives in Newhaven


Keep an eye out for Geeham

[edit]

The user who created this nonsense article has repeatedly removed the deletion notices - keep an eye out for him. He's done it twice now, first to my nomination for deletion and now to yours. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 16:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would explain why it no longer appeared on my watchlist. =) –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 16:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shoosh! THE GEEHAM LIVES!

Substing templates

[edit]

Hey, there. :) As an RC patroller myself, I'm more than grateful to see somebody fighting the tide of vandalism -- thank you! I do have one small request, however: could you please substitute your warning templates? For example, instead of using {{test1}}, you could use {{subst:test1}}. See the page on substing for more details. Again, thank you, and happy editing! Luna Santin 10:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battleships

[edit]

If you click in the infobox request box on infobox ship it will take you to the ship table format that is being used. It takes up less space and fixes some issues that they had with the old style format. Also you can find information out at the maritime task force on WikiProject Military History. --Oldwildbill 12:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citing works. Type WP:CITE in the search box located on the right column (or click on the link). Then click the go button. Attribution is especially needed for direct quotes.Wikipedia:No original research policy talks about the importance of citing and Wikipedia:Verifiability Both are policy (along with NPOV which you are involved with on another article. The reqimage template has been deprecated and replace with the reqphoto template. I perfered the reqimage but the consenses was to go with the new image requested template under the assumption that any picture or drawing is really a photograph of that image or drawing and the assumption that the majority of wiki contributors would understand what is meant by it. WP:HOW-TO also is a good research point on how to do something. Also remember that the argument used in the dispute SGGM - If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it and Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include the vast majority of web pages or images - pertains to all articles. Take a look at this article Medal of Honor. The wiki community has moved to a lot of inline citations and referencing to get an article to feature article status. Most of the articles you have contributed on are good articles. I can not nominate it for a good article review until it has images and citations. Length of article does not matter but it is one step at a time. Thats why I put tags on articles that I think are worthy so that other editors, along with the orginal editors, work to improve the article - if I work the article I can not give an assessment due to the appearance of impartiality. If you wish please respond on my talk page with questions, concern or assistance. I might be a little slow in responding as I am redeploying from the sand to the real world.--Oldwildbill 14:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just in Spanish, it's about as nn-bio as you can get. The translation reads Miss Seki is the teacher of Doremi and the others, is a little stern and sometimes punishes them. Also she likes to ride a motor bike. Nocontext, non-notable, you name it. Still, she does like to ride a motor bike :-) I've let the author know about {{vanity}} on their talk page. Cheers, Tonywalton  | Talk 13:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Spanish (beyond the extremely useful phrases Dos cervezas por favor, y mi amigo pagará, which means "two beers please, and my friend's paying", and ¿Dónde son los servicios? - "Where are the toilets?"). However I have a machine translator, and I reckon anything one line long just about has to be {{db-empty}} or {{db-a7}} ;-) Hasta luego, Tonywalton  | Talk 13:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Et cum spiritu tuo, or something. I just noticed on your user page that you're a doctor. While you're there, I have these spots on my. Coincidence being what it is, you're not by any chance based in St Albans, are you? My brother's a GP there. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I missed that. We both missed Ai Nagano, by the way, by the same author. It translates as She is the most repellent girl in all the class, she thinks that she is the queen of the college and because of that she has hardly any friends. Now tagged as attack. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not so; I tagged that for speedy (13.07 Wiki time). The author must have removed the tag.--Anthony.bradbury 14:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant we both missed the attackiness. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SGGS on Meat

[edit]

I am surprised that you have put the message that this article SGGS on Meat is "Evangelical text; not encyclopedic" Any encyclopaedia is a reference database and the text put on this page is in support of a very important subject for many millions of Sikhs and forms the reference material for the various other pages which are being created to refer to this page.

The SGGS is the holy script of the Sikhs and reference to this text from this script is very important. A true copy of the text has to be produced for any meaningful value and reference

This page has been linked to another page where the different points of views (POVs) are stated. So this page forms part of a group of articles which form the material that is important to users and students in this field. I believe that you have only looked at this page in isolation while in reality, this page is going to be a hub for many other articles.

I hope you will agree with me when you look at this page with all the links installed in the next few days, and I hope you will appreciate the importance of this very valuable reference material. --Hari Singh 15:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by user:Tonywalton

[edit]
I wonder if it might be worth taking your {{prod}} and my {{prod2a}} off that article and putting it on AfD instead, to get some wider debate. As it is it seems the author isn't aware he can de-prod it himself, so it'll disappear in a few days, leading to potential accusations of bias. Just a thought… Tonywalton  | Talk 12:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by User:Anthony.bradbury

[edit]

I am afraid that I do not agree with you. Any article promoting any specific religious faith or doctrine must, by definition, be POV and hence non-encyclopedic. I would take the same line with a tract putting forward the tenets of any other faith, including my own. But I am not an admin, and I will abide by the decision ultimately arrived at by the powers that be. Pleasae note that I did not mark it with a speedy tag, although as a POV article it would have qualified for one, to allow time and space for debate.--Anthony.bradbury 20:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Many thanks for you reply. I would appreciate if we carry on the discussion at your user page as otherwise we will lose track of what is going on. I have marked your talk page "On Watch" so I will know whenever a change takes place here.

Well as suggested by you, I have listed below articles on Christianity which refer to original text from the holy Bible – I would like you to look at these article and do the same as you did to the article on Sikhism. Please have these texts removed as well as they support a POV and hence are "non-encyclopedic" as you say. I would like you to do the same with these articles as they are creating the same violation? Do you agree or not? Or do you have a different excuse here?

List of articles using original text from the Bible:


Surely you should now go and put this message on all these articles. I will be adding to this list. --Hari Singh


Your suggestion that i should add links to other articles at your suggestion is just not going to happen. If you wish to add tags to them yourself you are at perfect liberty, under the rules of Wikipedia, to do so.--Anthony.bradbury 17:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember you put up the message on the article – I did not!! – Now when I show you similar "violations" – Why do you behave in a different manner? Is it your inherent prejudices against other peoples and religions? By putting up the message, you made a ruling by that decision - quoting from the holy text should not be allowed – Now, Is it one rule for Sikhism and a different rule for Christianity? I am concerned by you exercising double standards – Perhaps you do the same in your everyday life? It’s a very poor NHS if you do!! --Hari Singh 17:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say again, if you want other articles tagged you are free to tag them. I would point out that I have made no personal attack on you or on your article, and would appreciate the same courtesy from you.--Anthony.bradbury 18:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Create a Page for a person

[edit]

Hardik Malaviya born (22 April 1991) is an Indian Artist and Graphics Designer who is best known for his work (Only His character) in the Bollywood Movie Go Goa Gone and he is graphics designer manager at his Company Malaviya Art placed in Gujarat India. He such has a genius mind at his work. (You can Change the words)

references : http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5910274/ http://www.vipmerkezi.net/2013-altyazili-brrip-dvdrip/go-goa-gone-2013-hdrip-film-indir-viptr-40851.html http://www.oneclickmoviez.ag/movie/6064-go-goa-gone http://www.filmaffinity.com/es/film104099.html http://www.desimovies.info/2014/04/go-goa-gone-2013-full-movie-watch.html http://www.molodezhnaja.ch/go-goa-gone.htm http://m.lucywho.com/p24729460/go-goa-gone/