User talk:The wub/archive19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

edit • all

2005

J F M A M J J A S O N D

2006

J F M A M J J A S O N D

2007

J F M A M J J A S O N D

2008

J F M A M J J A S O N D

Contents

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XVIII (August 2007)
Project news
Articles of note

New featured articles:

  1. Attack on Sydney Harbour
  2. Augustus
  3. Cædwalla of Wessex
  4. Confederate government of Kentucky
  5. Ine of Wessex
  6. Harry S. Truman
  7. Hispanic Americans in World War II
  8. Ironclad warship
  9. Pham Ngoc Thao
  10. Victoria Cross for New Zealand

New featured lists

  1. Surviving veterans of World War I

New A-Class articles:

  1. Battle of the Plains of Abraham
  2. Enfield revolver
  3. Fort Stanton (Washington, D.C.)
  4. Ho Chi Minh Campaign
  5. Jacques Le Gris
  6. Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Current proposals and discussions
Awards and honors
  • Wandalstouring was awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his long and dedicated service as a project coordinator and his many contributions to the structure and operations of the project.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 666 Satan Category Deletion

although i respect your consensus to delete the category i am a bit discouraged that it was never brought to my attention that the category was up for possible deletion... are these matters not ususally brought to the page creators attention, and if so why was i not informed.... just out of curiosity... thanks for your time, Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 17:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's encouraged, and I personally think it's good form, but it's not compulsory. the wub "?!" 22:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
ya ik, i was just a little bit shocked when it came up on a 666 Satan page monitoring page i have set up sayin they were deleted and i wasn't even informed of the decision... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 23:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

I happily remember Eifion am sorry I never thought/got round to thanking him.Stdied under him c.1995 - 200? That's why I wrote up the wee note, I had hoped to praise him - but that is POV.Osborne 13:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to? I'm not sure you've got the right talk page. the wub "?!" 13:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The Simpsons WikiProject membership update

The Simpsons WikiProject is performing a membership update to check for currently active and idle members.

Because your username appears on the members list, we kindly ask you visit this page and put your name under the appropriate section, using the code #~~~~, in order to renew or cancel your membership.

If you do not comply with any of the choices, at the end of 1 month after this message was posted, your membership will be canceled and your name removed from the list. If you wish to regain your membership, just sign in again!

The The Simpsons WikiProject team – 00:08, June 10, 2008 (UTC)

Oh noes! My membership was cancelled! That will teach me to not comply with choices. Also, learn to timestamp. the wub "?!" 23:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged OBL bodyguards

Please reconsider your rename closure of this CFD. Closing with a rename to "alleged" opens up a Pandora's Box. Anyone who's arrested or even suspected of any crime anywhere in the world is subject to being added to an "alleged" category on the basis of the crime they're alleged to have commited. Anyone who's the subject of an allegation of any act by anyone is subject to being included. O. J. Simpson could be put into categories for alleged murderers, alleged armed robbers, alleged kidnappers, etc. on the basis of his legal history. George W. Bush is an alleged deserter. John Kerry is an alleged traitor. Larry Craig is an alleged homosexual. And so on, for every public figure on Wikipedia. Every one of these people has denied the allegations against them but the fact of the existence of the allegations means that per your decision here any allegation made, especially those made under color of government action, is suitable for categorization regardless of the truth or factual basis of the allegation. An article exists for alleged OBL bodyguards, Surely it's better for such allegations to be in an article where the allegations and the refutations of the allegations can be detailed and reliably sourced. Otto4711 19:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't do anything of the sort. I agree that "alleged" categories are generally a bad idea, but this was one specific and rather special case. The allegations in this category all come from a single source, the US govt., unlike the examples you presented. Whether you like it or not, this is a notable source. Perhaps it would be better named as "Category:Alleged bodyguards of Osama bin Laden according to the U.S. Government" (or whatever), but no one suggested this or similar, and it's unwieldy.
What's more the allegations are a defining characteristic for the article, after all if the US hadn't accused them and locked them up, then they most likely wouldn't have Wikipedia articles. (I'm not convinced they should have individual articles anyway, but consensus seems to be that they do, and I'm not wading into that mess).
The presence of the allegations is already reliably sourced within each article, so as I said I don't understand why you object so strongly to the category, yet support the (currently) less complete article Osama bin Laden bodyguard. the wub "?!" 23:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Above and beyond

Wow, I saw you made a little link back to my comments "above" (which were no longer above) when you relisted the Category:Disco Groups for further discussion at CfD. I think I have to call that diligence above and beyond the call of duty. Good show, man, thanks! Cheers, Xtifr tälk 09:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem! the wub "?!" 23:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Darts of pleasure.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Darts of pleasure.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh BcB, you always make me feel so special... the wub "?!" 23:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender

The bot doesn't seem to be deleting or archiving closed AfD discussions from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender. Would you look into it please? — Becksguy 05:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it still works, I've just had some connection troubles so it hasn't been running on schedule recently. I'm hoping to make a few changes over the next few weeks. the wub "?!" 22:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baba Saad

That information it is not cited. How can we know it's true or not?.--Tasc0 22:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well we can't, and it would be better if it was cited. However it is an assertion of notability, and given that this has an article on the German Wikipedia (where they are more likely to know) as well as other languages, it is an indication that it's not entirely specious. This could still go to AfD though for discussion. the wub "?!" 22:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you think that proding the article may be ok?--Tasc0 23:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to improve it, he certainly appears notable. Annoyingly I can't find any archives of the German charts at all. the wub "?!" 10:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll just leave it. Thank you. Hey, do you mind taking a look to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#213_.28group.29. These people are driving me crazy.--Tasc0 21:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Deletion

Dear the wub,

Please put my page back on WikiPedia. If you havn't noticed, I have been editing it and making it an artical worthy for an encyclopedia. I might have removed the tags that showed i'm working on it but i would really like it you put the artical back so i can finish editing it. Thanks and it you need to contact me, please use my user talk page. Thanks -mrchadsexington. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrchadsexington (talk • contribs) 23:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia only accepts articles on people who reach a minimum standard of "notability" and have recieved attention from other (reliable) sources. Being a "world class Computer IT Guy" isn't enough, and sounds like promotion. If you have more evidence of notability, please let me know. the wub "?!" 09:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)