User talk:Ceyockey/archive5 2008

really be online. But have a great 2008! Best, Rt. 00:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for AFDing that one -- that will teach me to look for previous activity! And have a Happy New Year! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have checked the talk page about previous AfD nomination. Thanks for fixing the article. I agree with your action. Dekisugi (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin but I've added my opinion to the AN/I thread. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having deleted Patrick Carroll page. (I had not checked my account until today). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anhinga (talk • contribs) 13:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that you've been doing some tagging lately (well done!) and I noticed that there's an odd quirk of the template. I'm not certain if it does this for all classes, but for at least the "Future" class, it won't register the parameter if written as "Class"; it needs to be "class". Again, I'm not certain if that's for all variables or only Future-class articles, but thought I'd give you a heads up. Many thanks and keep up the good work, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it there and not at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Read (singer)? — Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but for navigational purposes it makes more sense at the redlinked location, with a link to the first AfD (under a different name) present. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some significant updates to the Havidol article that I believe addresses your concerns about notability. Please review the current version of the article to see whether you believe this will be sufficient to save the article from deletion. I would appreciate it if you would share any additional concerns about notability.

If I had not had knowledge of the Havidol art exhibit, I would have agreed with you assessment of the article's lack of notability in the state that I found it prior to my edits. I am not one of the original authors and came across the AfD by chance.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Could you please review the deletion of the "Magpie Club" article. If the article requires additional information I can update it. It is an independently notable coterie of the Collingwood Football Club. It should be included in Wikipedia and not deleted. user:tommyc --Tommyc (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on SPIN (sales), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because SPIN (sales) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting SPIN (sales), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see from your user page that you are not new to the name page work, but am wondering about the chronological ordering on this page. Generally in dab pages (WP:MOSDAB) the order is by expected hits. Not that I have a clue what that order should be here, there may be some that do. I can see if it is not clear that chronological would be good (even better than alphabetical), but 1) it would probably be useful to have this discussed as part of a manual of style and 2) if you are choosing this way because there is not clear order otherwise, please say so in your edit summary. I'll be watching here should you just want to reply here. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies (and for trying to sort out the occasionally gray area between dab pages and name pages) - your goals and plan appear to me to be in the right direction. I think I will start a discussion in the dab community suggesting that should all things be equal on a name dab page (i.e. everyone equally likely to be the desired article subject), we use chronology - more useful than an alphabetical sort, which generally ends up being sorting by middle name! (John User:Jwy talk) 22:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you merge and transwiki Ekkyklema and Eccyclema into Wikitionary? I think I've seen you do it once before somewhere. MBisanz ^talk 05:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, and now I have a nice how-to on my userpage to refer to. Thanks! MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd give the courtesy of letting you know I pinched this. I didn't think you'd mind, seeing as you pinched it yourself from someone else... -- Roleplayer (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, what is the best way to add something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Subjects requesting deletion to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Deletion_sorting? --MPerel 02:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a wonderfully thorough and helpful response, Ceyockey, thank you! : ) --MPerel 05:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been working on fixing up her page in my sand box http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliya-Jasmine_Sovani would like to know how to re-activate her page again. Jamierush (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)jamie[reply]

Were you in favor of deletion or keeping?Kww (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Accidents_Sketch_%282nd_nomination%29 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ceyockey, The Eggology article, which I first put up, spent its first few days on the "articles for deletion" list. I see today that it has now been included among the WikiProject Companies. I am new to this. Does this mean that it will be allowed to stay, and not deleted? If so when will the "articles for deletion" tag come off the article's page? Thank you so much for your help. - Eileen Galen (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation of the process. Eileen Galen (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ceyockey, Regarding content and your help - thank you, and thank you for treating it as a teachable moment - I am learning, and appreciate your patience and work! ...71.32.250.29 (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Scrubbing bubbles home logo2.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Ceyockey, I noticed that you readded the Wiktionary tag to Poodlebug. Do you have an account at Wiktionary? My general feeling is that they are no more interested in neologisms than we are, and have a special page set up for exactly that. When you "search" for poodlebug on Wiktionary you receive this message and friendly warning. Are you sure it belongs there? Keeper | 76 22:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for the explanation, that makes perfect sense. Off to Wikt it goes, and will likely land with a rather odorous thump on someone's back shed. It is a poodlebug after all. And, icing, I can call my day complete because I learnt something new today - I now can use sylph in a sentence. Cheers, :-) Keeper | 76 15:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit to User:Ceyockey/Sandbox. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I don't much enjoy trespassing on other editors' userpages, even for necessary maintenance, so I'm glad you didn't mind too much. Cheers--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I award this Barnstar to you, Ceyockey, for lots of imaginative hard work – both visible and behind-the-scenes – on WikiProject Anthroponymy! - Fayenatic (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For all of your hard work in helping out the Anthroponomy project. Thank you for all your hard work and keep it up!!!! Remember (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. The first sixty or so multibanner templates were all portals, I guess I kind of drifted off... It won't happen again. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 02:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! I'd not come across {{Db-move}} before, should come in usefull (I guess that's why it was created). --JD554 (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can merge the inactive WikiProject music genres into WikiProject music since nobody objects you after a month. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to use the preview button before recording an edit in Wikipedia? [1] --Edibility (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to be blunt about this, but I close TfD nominations. That's the only admin task I do on any sort of basis. I don't deal with what should be in articles, I just evaluate debates and remove what the community has decided should not be in them. The result of the debate was to remove such templates, there was no mention of replacing them with something else. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That edit was by mistake, I did hit 'ignore' on another Wikispace page, that was an honest mistake. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I canme off as a jerk, I really don't mean it. I don't know what you want me to reconsider, I removed a template per a consensus, I can't re-add it. I also have neither the time nor interest to add hundreds of portal links to articles which don't interest me. As a frequent TfD closer, most of my edits are to remove content from the encyclopedia, I remove infoboxes, navboxes, external links, and other things all the time, cross-links to portals fall under the same blanket. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we are done. Please understand I am very sorry if I have been unhelpful, I would be more than happy to provide the portion of my contribution log which contains those articles. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:United Water companyWeb logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:C3 logo absorptionsystems.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:FisherScientific logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Cover neuron vol47iss1 large.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please archive your talk page. --65.78.214.254 (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article List of World War II MIAs, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Logo American Institute for Cancer Research Jan2006.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Logo a current affair.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Logo aar.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of campus radio stations, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of campus radio stations. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Rtphokie (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant job - thanks! You'll have this ready for GA status in no time! bd2412 T 04:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw that you blocked and then, because of the lack of very recent warning, unblocked this IP. I have reviewed the contributions and it seems clear to be that they are identical over the past few days, so the final warning given over the last few days should, in my opinion, be sufficient. I have therefore gone ahead and blocked (for 1 week, based upon the vandalism and blocking history). Just letting you know in case you have any concerns and would like to discuss. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is easier for me to recognize nice work when I have done it -- following the 'what links here' around is something I consider to be nice work (interesting as well). Thank you :) -- carol (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ceyocky, I wanted to ask you about the deletion of this page. Boloco is clearly a notable chain, it has several locations in the Northeast, and has received coverage in several reliable sources: [2] [3] [4]. I'll take it to DRV if you want, but I thought I'd ask you first. Thanks! GlassCobra 14:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continues here ... --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was the point of the post on my talk page? -- JT^Holla! 01:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for the template. I'm more than aware how AfD works; thanks though. -- JT^Holla! 12:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make you feel better if I went back and copied and pasted what the guy above me said, because it sums my feelings up exactly, hence why I put what I put. -- JT^Holla! 01:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I saw your edit summary. Unless I'm mistaken, you can link like this and bypass the "What links here" functionality. Cheers. Haus^Talk 02:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please see the following: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anthroponymy#No_manual_of_style_for_name_articles.3F. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm really sorry that my doubts expressed on that talk page seem to have terminated the progress that was being made on significant proposals. How can we get them moving again?

While I'm here, do you mind me asking why you created Pillai (surname) as a redirect to a single person rather than to Pillai? - Fayenatic (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a response back here. Think a category is the best way to go at it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Luxcel Biosciences logo.png. 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. BJBot (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo plannedparenthood.gif. 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. BJBot (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have replied to a discussion you started there some time ago. It's not a heated debate so I thought I will let you know. Yury Petrachenko (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Archive4. I was wondering if you might be interested in the discussion here? That is one of 5 discussions I started recently (I need to try and avoiding spreading the discussion out so much). You might be interested in those as well. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Carcharoth (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for deleting this as I requested. Could you please also Salt it, to prevent misguided moves such as the one I had to reverse? Thank you in advance. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! No worries about letting these AfDs play out if that's how editors want to handle it. Thanks for bringing this up. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel this page should be split?
What do you think it should be split into?
(And this discussion should probably be on talk:fairburn ... )
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are experimenting with a new talk banner for Anthroponymy, {{Anthroponymy v2}}.

You might want to have a look at {{WPBannerMeta}} and see if you can base it on that if it meets your needs.

e.g.

{{WPBannerMeta
|PROJECT             = Anthroponymy
 |BANNER_NAME        = {{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}
 |small  = {{{small|}}}
 |nested = {{{nested|}}}
 |category={{{category|μ}}}
|IMAGE_LEFT          = WPanthroponymy.svg
|IMAGE_LEFT_LARGE    = 45px
|IMAGE_LEFT_SMALL    = 30px
|QUALITY_SCALE       = yes
 |class={{{class|}}}
|IMPORTANCE_SCALE    = yes
 |importance = {{{importance|}}}
|COMMENTS            = yes
|MAIN_TEXT           = This {{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|Wikipedia talk=project page|Image talk=image|Template talk=template|Help talk=help page|Category talk=category|#default=article}} falls within the scope of the '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy|Anthroponymy WikiProject]]''', a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of [[Anthroponymy]], the study of people's names.  This project is dedicated to creating uniform helpful encyclopedia quality articles on the [[surname]]s, [[family name]]s and [[nickname]]s of people. If you would like to participate, you can visit the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy|project page]], where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
}}

-- WOSlinker (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give reasons for the suggested split of Babai? Leave a msg at Talk:Babai. Ta. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious. I haven't been paying much attention and see that the "split category" is gone (or am I looking in the wrong spot?). What happened? (John User:Jwy talk) 19:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I couldn't find reference to it on your Project page. . . (John User:Jwy talk) 15:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Absorption Systems requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. triwbe (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WiktionaryAbbr has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Skittleys (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to list this at WP:UAA, please feel free to do so. I was convinced it was acceptable, if unwise. I am using my "non-admin" account right now, on vacation, so I can't do anything about it right now anyway. Bearian, a/k/a Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm commenting here, rather than at User talk:Jimbo online because it's going off on a tangent and that user doesn't need to be bombarded with random messages. I quote: however, when the editor chooses to write it as Jimbo[online] then I believe that is a deliberate attempt to deceive readers that Jimbo (Wales) is now online ( by WWGB (talk · contribs)). In no way is that assuming good faith. It is, in fact, assuming that the editor is deliberately trying to impersonate Jimbo Wales, when they as a user have tried to do nothing of the sort. That is assuming bad faith, and it is clear from the user's earlier comments on the same subject that all this approach is achieving is putting them on the defensive. -- role^player 12:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment, We've seen plenty of people who are surprised or offput by the rules and norms of behavior that exist here - yes, I'm one of them. I've been editing since 2003 (since 2006 with a username) and more than half of what goes on still goes totally over my head. -- role^player 12:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have doubts about the validity of the infomercials you have used as source on this subject. Everything I have read on the subject does not say that 6,000,000 people trace their ancestry to 2,600 founders. I read about 6,500 (22%) out of ~30,000 French immigrants who are generally considered the founding population of Quebec.[5]. This ~30,000 is out of a total of ~36,000 immigrants (80%). I believe the confusion might come from the fact that the population databases possibly used by all these genetics labs are made out of a samples of "ascending genealogies" from the Registre de la population du Québec ancien (RPQA) and the BALSAC population register [6]. The 2,600 figure might have to do with these samples. It could be worth looking into.

Hoping to dispel some long-standing and widely spread myths about my compatriots, I started, a while ago, the project of writing an article on the "ethnic origins of Quebecers" Origines ethniques des Québécois. Unfortunately, I have yet to finish it and have not begun the translation of it to English. Still, as you can see in the French draft, I have reproduced the table of the pre-1760 immigration to Quebec. -- Mathieugp (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I do not understand where the personal offence was. By "infomercials", I was (sarcastically) referring to the nature of the contents of the articles and their form, not the validity of the media themselves. Surely you must have noticed the corporate tone and corporate journalistic style of these articles. These kinds of .com news site often contain good info, but they also contain ad-sounding articles, where information is secondary and a pretext to interview some dude who will talk about how innovative his company is. I am sorry if you do not share my sarcasm.

And the reason I asked, and did not just modify your paragraph, is because I thought maybe you had other sources, or any leads so we can could clarify where the author of the article got his/her figures and provide the precision needed for greater accuracy, if the information can be found. My only concern is for not spreading awe-inspiring figures that often turn out to be not exactly true upon further research. I never said nor implied anything else. I do not question your competence, nor the quality of your encyclopaedic contributions here. You'll have to believe my word.

I do not think what you wrote is garbage. It appears to me as useful stuff and it seems to me to make sense to have something about this in the article on the demographics of Quebec.

Also, I never said I was going to write another article, I was pointing out the scholarly sources I have read while writing the draft article I linked. That draft was started 3 May 2007 at 01:17 and last modified 13 February 2008 at 17:48. The draft is not about population genetics: it is about history, a subject I feel more competent writing about than anything related to genes (except maybe my own genealogy tree, but it obviously does not belong in Wikipedia, in any language... ;-)

If you do not wish or simply cannot help me shed light on the possible source of the 2,600 -> 6,000,000 figures, then it will have to stay that way, because the sources I have, while they provide other figures, do not allow for the improvement I was hoping could be made. I am looking forward to your reply. -- Mathieugp (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, your removal of the prod tag from this page did puzzle me slightly. You can find the afd debate here. Letting you know just in case you want to comment/!vote. BanRay 20:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It appears that with this edit you "substed" the template. I'm not sure if there is any official policy regarding whether it should be substed or not, but normally I don't.--Rockfang (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was suggesting you insert it as a normal template. Without transcluding or subst'ing.--Rockfang (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed odd then. Normally, {{#switch:{{{1}}}|s=|-}}08{{#switch:{{{1}}}|s=|-}}24 doesn't show up when the template is transcluded. Oddly, noone has edited the template since the 17th? Any ideas?--Rockfang (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may have narrowed the problem. I think you substed the "con" date as the template page suggests. I'm thinking either there is a bug with {{CurrentYYYYMMDD}}, or the subst suggestion on {{oldprodfull}} should be removed. I'll keep investigating.--Rockfang (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:Overcategorization is no basis for nominating an article for deletion."

Then maybe you should update this page WP:Deletion policy because it says otherwise. HD1986 (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had trouble navigating back from the category page to the place you mention it in the split off page. And with all the article links on the main page, I'm wondering how useful the new page is - but I leave it to you! (John User:Jwy talk) 21:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a list over 200 strong, of just charter, middle, intermediate, elementary, and high schools, not to include academies and schools of the arts, but dont know how to organize them 'the right way' so it doesnt get nit-picked' and edited a thousand times. should i keep it to elementary, intermediate, middle, and high schools; or add 'academies' and 'schools of the arts' to the list of categories? SuzukaISichigo100% (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, User:Ceyockey/List of companies by publication mention has a link to the Epic dab page (which I have a adopted to keep things from inappropriately pointing to it). Since you ask we don't edit it, I haven't changed/removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwy (talk • contribs)

Hi Ceyockey, I saw your edits on Mullard-Philips tube designation. Can you help to solve the mystery of this? Do you know a source to check? --BEG (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of omics topics in biology, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

bibliometric original research, outdated

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

I didn't propose deletion; I'm just doing the courtesy author notification. Fg2 (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You made a good point here; further discussion (15 months later!) is now happening, FYI. Chime in with your current feelings... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 11:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Concerning your article on that, or at least taking you for the author, I would like to add that my partner's family name is Reed as well. Her family, being from Wales (North) and with unlike background anywhere else, told me Reed is a common surname there, originally coming from Welsh Rhydd, meaning free. Now, it is supposed to have been taken by freed serfs or something like that. Anyway, I could not find many sources of that, but on the other hand have no reasons to doubt the truth in that. And after all, that's why I decided to contact you, should you want to consider that information. Kind regards.