User:Markdask/Archive 3

The Marquess of Queensberry

Hello,

Thanks for your attention to the Oscar Wilde article. Unfortunately, the correct spelling is "Queensberry"--I checked it in numerous sources at the time. Here is His Lordship's calling card: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:Somdomite.jpg

P.s. I am very much not an American.

Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

New Palace Theatre, Plymouth

Thanks for the message and kind remarks. I came across the theatre when I was expanding the article on Jack Fitchett. Another Plymouth resident, Argyle 4 Life mentioned the state the theatre is in, which inspired me to read up further and then to create the article. I hope the article can help in some way to persuading the owners and local authority to get together to work out a future for the theatre before it gets any worse. I live in Sussex myself and have only ever been to Plymouth once, so it's unlikely our paths will cross in the real world. Best wishes. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC) delete

Black&Tans note

Tnx fr yr comments regarding the Black and Tans edits. Here are some clarifications: (i) I think I agree with you that "the then" is indeed a bit more concise and, if anything, my use of the term 'stupid' referred to its removal, rather than its inclusion. The goal of my edit was to try and avoid the issue entirely by rewording. I'm not sure that concision can always the key goal in WP. Apologies if it offended. (ii) With regard to the use of 'pulls no punches', that's entirely between you and the other editors - I don't have any opinion and am not involved in these edits. (iii) To be clear, I am Irish, although admittedly I spend part of my time in Silicon Valley, which may account for your inaccurate use of expressions like 'you Americans' and the reference to Bill O'Reillly. Tnx! jxm (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Date formats

Thanks for the concern, but Wikipedia's manual of style on date formats explicitly doesn't use "th" suffixes. It does respect UK/US day/month ordering, though, so by all means correct that if an article is using the wrong one. --McGeddon (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps it wasn't clear that sentence had a link to the manual of style. If you click through to WP:BADDATEFORMAT you'll see it gives a clear table of which date formats should and shouldn't be used in articles. It gives an exception for "titles and quotes" (such as the Observance of 5th November Act 1605) and famous dates (Fourth of July), but sheer Britishness doesn't enter into it; even Elizabeth II doesn't get "th"s on her dates. --McGeddon (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the WP:BADDATEFORMAT link - I did read it through. I am not about "sheer Britishness here McGeddon, (I am myself a fervent Irish Nationalist of the benign kind); I am about historical context - WW1 was primarily a European conflict, (though heads up to the US for weighing in in both wars). Elizabeth II is in fact the correct rendition of the title - never Elizabeth 2nd. I am merely suggesting that the Manual's standard for dates, e.g. 2 december, is a modern Americanization that by its brevity - in most instances beneficial - detracts from the historicism of the article "Christmas Truce". I think the Manual could be improved were it to allow some latitude to historical context. What I'm suggesting is hardly a hang-able offense - do please point me to where I might pursue the topic. Mark^Dask 22:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I just mean that all the dates in the Elizabeth II article are of the "12 December" format. These things are always up for discussion, though - if you think the manual of style should regard "12th December" as an acceptable formatting for UK historical articles, you can start a thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers to see what other policy-experienced editors think. --McGeddon (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link McGeddon - I will take the issue there - and thanks also for your general guidence Mark^Dask 17:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Events happening in Dublin

Hi! As you tagged yourself as being in Ireland, I hope you don't mind me reaching out. We know have a recognised Wikimedia Community Ireland User Group and we have been running workshops and other events in Dublin and beyond. In case you are interested our next event will be this Saturday in Collins Barracks, you can find the details here. Smirkybec (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Anjem Choudary

I think it's good to recognise when someone contributes something that has been overlooked for a long time, particularly thankless tasks like punctuation. No other reason. Koncorde (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated Koncorde and yup that's me - wikignome :) Mark^Dask 10:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Collective noun

I reverted your last edit to Chris Matthews because "couple" in "the couple has" is a collective noun. So even though it sounds wrong, it is actually correct to say "the couple has" rather than "the couple have". -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Chippendale Society

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello. A tag has been placed on The Chippendale Society 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 an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Rahul^{Text me} 21:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The banner of The Chippendale Society.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The banner of The Chippendale Society.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge

Hi, at Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Chippendale, the younger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edwin Lascelles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Markdask,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Markdask. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello Markdask,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 812 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

Another comparison tool

• toollabs:sigma/editorinteract.py Check out edit patterns by two or more users, eg Markdask & PBS

You can find links to other interesting tools in my rather chaotic notes page

-- PBS (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hi PBS - thanks for that. Your notes page is an excellent source - kinda what I need rt now as I've only recently become active again - need to brush up on my general knowledge. Mark^Dask 05:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Damad Ali-Paša's Turbeh

Hi Mark. I have moved the article as requested. I haven't, however, corrected the spelling within the article, so you may want to take care of that. For future reference, the moving procedure is normally very straightforward: just hover over the "More" button in the article's topbar: that will give you a "Move" button to click on, and then follow the instructions. Things can get more complicated if your "new" article name already exists as a redirect, and of course potentially controversial moves should be discussed in advance, but those tend to be exceptional cases. GrindtXX (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

About the deletion of my page.

Hello Mark! Thanks for reviewing my page, Bahanaga. But I'm really surprised to find my page deleted. So all I want to know why it was deleted and how can I retrieve it back. Hoping to get a reply soon! Regards. Soumya Sarit Mohanty. Soumya Sarit Mohanty (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Soumya - your page was not deleted, only redirected. I've brought it back and made some improvements, which I hope you like. Let me know if you need any further assistance. Mark^Dask 17:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Stub tags

Please take care not to add {{stub}} to an article like Baghauli which already has a specific stub tag - though actually in this case it led me to find the article in Category:Stubs while stub-sorting and add a much more specific stub tag than had previously been added! PamD 14:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

Declined speedy deletion

Hello, I was somewhat concerned by your speedy deletion nominations of two articles. Neither Nearly nor Reminder (Nearly album) qualify under A9. Nearly is a band and therefore A9 is out of scope. It is within the scope of CSD A7, except it does have a credible claim of significance (because it has a notable member in the band) and thus A7 does not apply. The album is within A9's scope, but does not qualify for sure because A9 explicitly states "none of the contributing recording artists has an article". Please make sure to read speedy deletion criteria carefully, as they bypass consensus-based decisions and the community only has a consensus to speedily delete under the exact criteria written. Appable (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Appable - thanks for asking. The NearLY band would appear to have died by end 2005 - its producer link in the infobox is an empty space, and its one attempt at an album,Reminder, who knows what happened to it. If you have any misgivings about deleting same then perhaps consider redirecting both to Jerome Dillon's own page - the man himself is notable, but not his one attempt at solo work 11 years ago that went nowhere. Thanks for asking. Mark^Dask 22:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with the deletion of the article, but the issue is that speedy deletion is certainly not the appropriate venue for its deletion. Neither article remotely qualifies for the criterion: one out of scope and one fails one of the explicit terms. You could boldly redirect the article to the artist, or make a merge discussion, or nominate it for deletion, but speedy deletion is definitely not the appropriate place. Appable (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you read what I left on the Talk page of the article Reminder? It states on the speedy deletion tag that admins should read what's said on the Talk page when considering whether or not to delete. I pointed to the fact that the page is about an album that debuted in 2005, then died. It is true that Jerome Dillon is notable but that does not make this stub notable. I also suggest on the Talk page that the Nearly article is equally worthy of deletion - its Nearly official website and nearly.net sites are both quite dead. As a wikipedian of nine years experience, and a New Page Reviewer I fully expected an admin to pop around - read what I left on the Talk page and agree with me that both articles aint worth PRODing for discussion. There's a backlog of almost 15k new pages to get through so pardon me if I appeared to be a tad too swift in applying Speedy but, again, I had anticipated an admins response, and Speedy is sometimes the kindest thing to do. If you would prefer to keep them then I can simply redirect, because there is in fact nothing on either of these two pages that Jerome Dillon would himself want to keep. Thanks again Appable. Mark^Dask 23:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

True, but admins won't speedily delete an article if it doesn't meet the criteria - regardless of what's on the talk page. However, I've seen admins move an article to draftspace and AfC if it's an no-content speedy deletion and the main contributor asks for time. Nearly and Reminder definitely didn't qualify for speedy deletion, but I agree that neither subject was notable. I would recommend boldly redirecting articles whenever possible (or considering other alternatives to deletion). Finally, thanks for boldly redirecting the articles to Jerome Dillion - I think that's probably the best option at this time. If anyone challenges it (BRD), can start a merge/redirect discussion. Appable (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I've been working on the oldest articles in the backlog as a reviewer for weeks now so I'm kinda "quick on the draw" so to speak. [This], and [this] and [this] are three articles I speedied in one day, (4th December), but don't think of me as the grim reaper lol; [this], and [this] and [this] are three articles I virtually rebuilt around the same time, (view their edit histories). I specialize in graphics, maps, inline citations and formatting references. So I've redirected both those under discussion and of course I can reinstate them at any time. Again, thanks for your input, I'll probably opt more for redirect in the future ;D. Mark^Dask 01:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello Markdask,

Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

• Improve the tools: Vote here.
• Reduce your review load: Vote here

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

Talkback

Hello, Markdask. You have new messages at Ansh666's talk page.
Message added 23:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ansh666 23:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Markdask stop edit warring to restore the incorrect AfD template. Please read what Ansh666 has written to you on her their talk page and stop with the reverts.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I don't think there's any way you would know, but last time I checked, I'm a "he"...maybe I should check again? Yep, still a he. Anyways, glad I could help, Mark, I know all the different templates and processes can be confusing at times. ansh666 23:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It's odd I would have done that. Corrected now! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't edit-warring Ansh666, I hadn't gone over 3 reverts. When Koncorde said he had completely redrafted the lead section - I effectively conceded the argument.

On the subject of Ponyo's confusion regarding the sexes - I have always thought it sensible to employ the androgynym "s/he" - saves a lotta heartache. Mark^Dask 01:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

AFD

Please read WP:BEFORE, it will explain correct process, and the correct way to AFD for a second time as when the criteria of WP:BEFORE steps A, B, C and D have been followed. Koncorde (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not a problem. In the end it's an "opinion" piece, so subject to whims. But as I've found, even "opinions" about factual things like populations and urban areas are sensitive with some people being exceedingly defensive (or pro-actively aggressive). Koncorde (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Second city of the United Kingdom

If you're trying to delete Second city of the United Kingdom, you have not a chance. It's a notable concept. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I may not have a chance Tagishsimon, but I always like to try :D Mark^Dask 00:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion nomination of I'm Born to Run

Hello Markdask. Speedy deletion work is important and I do appreciate the effort. I would just ask that you please review the criteria carefully because accuracy is also important. On that issue, I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of I'm Born to Run as an article that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the topic under CSD A7. That criterion did not apply because the article was about a musical recording, and A7 only applies to articles on real persons or groups, individual animals, organisations, web content and organised events. Musical recordings do come under A9, but that also did not apply because it is only for articles on musical recordings where none of the contributing recording artists has an article, and an article on American Authors exists. Adam9007 (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Redirect tagging

A1, like all other "A" criteria, is for articles, and not for redirects; tagging a redirect for A1 is as preposterous as tagging a file for R3. Please read the criteria for speedy deletion before doing any more tagging: if you continue with such bad tagging, expect other people (not just me) to start wondering if your account's been compromised or if you've decided to become a vandal. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Peer VanMladen

You have tagged this article for spedy deletion as being created by a banned or blocked user; the apparent creator is not overtly blocked, and you have failed to indicate the sock which you are accusing of creating while blocked. Who is the blocked editor, please?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Anthony - there might be some confusion here. Whereas the "Speedy" tag suggests the user is "banned or blocked", as I stated on the article's Talk page, it is the title, "Peer VanMladen" that's the problem. The article is titled "Peer VanBladen", but is in fact about "Peer Van Mladen", (note the space between "Van" and "Mladen").

If you go to the original upload, Peer VanMladen, it actually states that the article is about "Peer Van Mladen", so all I did was to try to correct a typo in the title. When I did so, I discovered that the title "Peer Van Mladen" is in fact a "blacklisted" title. The creation of this page seems therefore an attempt to recreate a blacklisted title, and therefore qualifies for deletion.

Not only did I tag the article for "speedy deletion" - I also referred the title to the "blacklisted titles" page, to be certain the title is deleted.

I have little experience of socks but I'm inclined to think this is one. I will therefore leave it to sysops to decide. In the mean time, please do not remove the "Speedy" tag because the matter is already with sysops and, if you wish to contest my Speedy, please take it up with them. Mark^Dask 19:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record I am a sysop with almost ten years experience in the role. I do not argue your statement that blacklisted titles normally qualify for deletion, but I must re-iterate that accusing the creator of being a sock without providing evidence is not good practice. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 23:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Noted Mark^Dask