User talk:IZAK/Archive 44
IZAK (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email)
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | → | Archive 50 |
IZAK, I appreciate your wish to get involved, but I must admit at being a bit miffed at the way you do it here - it's easy to put the "exapnsion needed" tag on all those sections, but then you just walk away and hope somebody else will do it? How about you do a little yourself? PiCo (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
- Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
- Research: The most recent DR data
- Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
- Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
- DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
- Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
- Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
--The Olive Branch 19:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Chabad
In relation to this editsummary "no need to give Chabad.org PR with those links to it, WP relies on the older JPS version". I am reminded of a certain ARBCOM discussion. I'd like to note one thing, and ask one thing. Note. Calling this "Chabad PR" does not sound impartial. Ask. You say that HE is better than JP (see this list)? Was this discussed anywhere? I'd for one would say that a more modern translation is preferable. Debresser (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Debresser: Ah yes, your old buggaboo, anything to promote Chabad on WP, why don't you spend some time fighting for all Jewish topics equally not just what affects Chabad? It makes no sense to insert a choice of a dozen+ Christian translations of the Bible into a major Jewish topic such as the Rosh Hashanah article, just as it is POV pushing by you to insert Chabad.org Bible links into such articles, and just as it would make no sense to insert Jewish Bible links into Christianity articles. The JPS version is WP:NPOV long-accepted English-Hebrew translation that has been used on WP in Jewish articles as long as it's been around (and I've have been around almost 10 years on WP). As for the old ArbCom case, it was brought against you and the pro-Chabad POV editors and it was you that was warned, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Proposed decision#Neutral point of view and undue weight etc. In any case, it is amazing to me that with so much Chabad material being piled on to WP, that you are so focused on what can only be called "Chabad creep" as you try any which way to find even more ways to link to the blatantly Chabad.org site, and I have long stated that WP is not Chabad.org, per WP:NOTSOAPBOX & WP:LINKFARM & WP:NOTWEBHOST. Thanks for noting all this. IZAK (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- You got things precisely the other way around, as usual. I am not promoting any site. It is you who is "unpromoting" it. Ergo, it is you who has the POV, not me. In short, you have no right to change JP to anything else, just because you don't like Chabad. And I will reopen that case in a second, if I see this becoming a pattern. Debresser (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Debresser stop resorting to threats and making things up. I will not go around in circles with you. Evidently you are butting heads with too many established users over a broad front as it is and I would advise you to cool it. Looks like you are falling into the WP:SPIDERMAN syndrome, so please try to pull back from the cliff for your own sake. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- You got things precisely the other way around, as usual. I am not promoting any site. It is you who is "unpromoting" it. Ergo, it is you who has the POV, not me. In short, you have no right to change JP to anything else, just because you don't like Chabad. And I will reopen that case in a second, if I see this becoming a pattern. Debresser (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aish HaTorah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jewish outreach (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) 09:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Feedback, please: Ropshitz (Hasidic dynasty)
Hi! I've done some work on improving this page. I'd like your feedback, since you are a major contributor to Hasidic-dynasty-themed articles, and you've contributed to this article in particular. Note that I've merged Sulitz (Hasidic dynasty) and Sasregen (Hasidic dynasty) into Ropshitz. Thank you, and גמר חתימה טובה! Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Ratzd'mishukribo and thanks for letting me know:
- The work on the Ropshitz (Hasidic dynasty) is good, but it's unfortunately coming at the expense of smaller dynasties that are being "swallowed up" by your putting them into a huge family tree that has no room for more material on the smaller dynasties themselves. Kindly note that WP:NOTPAPER so why are you so determined to eliminate two WP:STUBS that could some day grow into full informative articles in their own right, and do you have plans to keep on doing this to more smaller dynasties that exist?
- I think you need to slow down because ultimately all the Hasidic dynasties can be traced down to a few core earlier ones and it would be a great pity to eliminate stubs that give a more comprehensive picture of smaller dynasties.
- In addition, some people even have axes to grind and by shutting down such articles it may arouse concerns of having another agenda, so please avoid falling into that trap.
- The larger well-known dynasties like Ropshitz deserve "trees" showing how the branches developed but you have been too hasty in redirecting these two after only a 2 days of waiting when it has taken years to get even this little information onto WP.
- I am therefore reverting your moves and I suggest you place a note for more discussion at WP:TALKJUDAISM and I will try to also involve some more experienced editors. I have asked a few editors for their input [1], [2], [3], [4].
- This is also bad timing because as you know the key Judaic editors are busy and distracted from editing since we are in the midst of the Jewish holidays which will not be over until the middle of October.
- So I suggest you wait before making any changes and see what kind of WP:CONSENSUS you get to make the kind of moves you have made so far. Thanks again for your understanding and patience, IZAK (talk) 05:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ratzd'mishukribo did a good job of merging Sasregen into Ropshitz. The Sasregen article is devoid of content; there is no Sasregen dynasty—it is just the name used by two rebbes (a father and a son) who are Ropshitser eyniklech. There really isn't very much to write about it.
- Regards and גמר חתימה טובה. --Redaktor (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have been following Ratzd'mishukribo's edits on the List of Hasidic dynasties page. At first I thought it was a good idea to weed the rabbinical groups from the list of dynasties (although a new page was not created for the rabbinical groups), but now I agree with IZAK that many smaller Hasidic subgroups are being eliminated for the sake of creating over-large parent dynasties. Many major Hasidic dynasties can be traced to Reb Dovid of Lelov – of course that doesn't mean that we should put all the offspring onto the parent page. Although at present many of these smaller dynasties are red links, they do have adherents in pockets of Israel and New York and should be included in a comprehensive list. I admire Ratzd'mishukribo's knowledge of the subject, but I am also troubled by the lack of citations to back up each assertion. Best, Yoninah (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you all for the feedback! Since IZAK addresses all the key issues, I will respond according to his numbered system.
- My work on the Ropshitz dynasty is not directly connected to the Sulitz/Sasregen merges. I simply improved the Ropshitz dynasty page (by the way, everything I wrote, except when marked otherwise, is taken from החסידות, as cited in "References") to the point that it included virtually everything in the Sulitz & Sasregen pages. I never really saw the point of these two pages' existence (it's been bothering me for two or three years now), so now that merging was so easy, I did it. I don't want to eliminate all smaller dynasties - but Sulitz and Sasregen are usually described as branches of the Ropshitz dynasty, since each has had only one rebbe apiece so far!
- Again, I don't want to swallow all smaller dynasties, but I do want to follow the example of the two classic Hasidic-dynasty encyclopedias: שם ושארית (Grossman) and החסידות (Alfasi, the recent edition - the older editions are dreadfully inaccurate) that categorize all dynasties into super-dynasties. I think all small dynasties should be merged and redirect to super-dynasties, and be described in a section on that super-dynasty's page, until that section becomes large enough to merit its own article. Sometimes, the rebbe of a small dynasty will merit his own page, but not his group. (I also think that "dynasty" is overused on Wikipedia - many dynasties are really "groups" or "rebbes with shuls" or "rebbes called rebbes, without shuls" - but that's not for me to fix.)
Stitshin, for example, really should have its own page, but unfortunately, at some point, someone decided that the Stitshin dynasty should be described as the successor of the Ropshitz dynasty. I don't know enough about Stitshin to write an article about it. - I assure you that I have no axe to grind - I believe that every rebbele, who is recognized by a significant part of the Hasidic community, should be mentioned. However, if you look at many small dynasty pages, you will notice that is seems that they were created by close relatives of rebbelech to promote them, or by non-notable descendants of notable dynasties that tried to add their families to all relevant dynasties. (Notice that for this reason I have removed various members of the Glasner family from the Kozhnitz, Ropshitz, and Zlotshov pages.)
- I was a little hasty, true, but the Sulitz and Sasregen pages were stagnant for quite a long time, so I didn't think anyone cared.
- Reverting was not such a good idea. The Sulitz and Sasregen pages had several serious mistakes and no references (Geni.com is hardly a reliable source!).
- A very fair point. I'm sorry.
- Please consider reverting your reversions to Sulitz and Sasregen, especially for the reasons mentioned in #1 & #5. I will take no action on my own. A גמר חתימה טובה! Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding Ratzd'mishukribo. Here are some additional points for you to consider:
- At least User Yoninah (talk · contribs) shares my concerns about your haste to melt down articles, and she has been a very diligent editor and creator of topics relating to Hasidism.
- It may well be a good idea to investigate the Sulitz (Hasidic dynasty) and Sasregen (Hasidic dynasty) topics and see if any more material can be found about them.
- On the point of the name "dynasty" on WP it has served as a workable catch-all label for both large and small Hasidic groups and Rebbes of all shapes and sizes. While to some observers some may not seem like "dynasties" on the other hand to the Rebbes who found/ed them or inherit/ed them (no matter how "small" the world thinks they are) they are real dynasties that can and do develop, as has happened with the all-American Boston (Hasidic dynasty).
- Sometimes formerly great dynasties shrink and disappear, or there is no real connection to the past between those that use the name today and those that used it in Eastern Europe, such as with Husyatin (Hasidic dynasty) and the huge Aleksander (Hasidic dynasty) that was destroyed in the Holocaust but it's very small today with no major connections to the pre-war dynasty/movement, and there were others.
- Again, this is not a science, and while there are a few books, it is not wise to eliminate the small for the sake of the big as it's a counter-productive sacrifice and loss for WP as an evolving all-inclusive encyclopedia that has no problems allowing and creating myriads of super parent WP:CATEGORIES, with sub and sub-sub, and sub-sub-sub, etc etc etc, smaller categories. See also WP:NOTPAPER.
- Even though some topics may lay dormant, that is not because they are not important, quite often it's because there aren't enough good editors and many editors leave and don't have time to contribute so WP:DONOTDEMOLISH is a good thing to note.
In the meantime Shabbos is almost upon us, to be followed by Yom Kippur (25-26 October) and then Sukkos (30 September - 9 October). This is not a propitious time to cut down on Judaism-related topics, that should be left for a time when more Judaic editors can be engaged to contribute on this complex and esoteric topic. Thanks for your understanding. IZAK (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Below (right) are two good depictions of what WP:DONOTDEMOLISH is all about, taken from Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, that I believe applies here:
Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- All fair points.
PS I know very well what and when Shabbos and Yom Tov are (if you weren't being condescending, זייט מיר מוחל, and מחול לך in any case). I am a (somewhat rebbish) Hasidic Orthodox Jewish yungerman. Check the times of my edits, if you don't believe me. Again, I only made the drastic merges because I didn't think anyone would mind. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi again Ratzd'mishukribo. Gut Voch, to continue:
- No I was not being "condescending" -- I was stating that I was pressed for time because Shabbos was coming and the Yomim Tovim are not far behind (as you know) -- just that Yidden are very busy right now and cannot focus fully on serious editing on WP. So altogether this is not a good time to chop up or shrink down articles.
- But you make a mistake that other editors interested in this field "don't mind" on the contrary, you could conclude that they are satisfied for now to wait for the articles to be improved but not to disappear inside a long "yichus tree" of rebbes that is more of a huge map than real articles.
- So sit tight for a while, try to be patient and by all means go ahead and try to focus on improving articles but not merging them which just comes across as trying to shortcut the WP:AFD procedure or other serious discussions that could go on at WP:TALKJUDAISM for example where your moves could be discussed and not come across as arbitrary actions by you.
- You need to understand that by now we are all working with the reality that WP is much larger and cumbersome than it was when you started years ago, there is more and more bureaucracy even among editors and not just dealing with admins and it takes much longer and much more WP:CONSENSUS needs to be built up before big changes take place.
- The problem with your moves seems to be that you had big plans to move around, consolidate and change a lot of Hasidic articles, and you just can't do that so easily without getting more people to agree with you.
- By the way, see my user page: Regarding most topics in Category:Jews and Judaism: I am primarily an INCLUSIONIST first, and a deletionist last!
Feel free to keep the dialogue going. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sasregen (Hasidic dynasty), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seret (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Tyrone S. Woods for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tyrone S. Woods is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen Doherty until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I've never had this situation before, so I'd like to hear from you: Please look at the recent history of the article. I don't want to get involved in an edit war. The IP user is adding promotional nonsense to the page. There is no (notable) Premishlaner Rebbe called Malik. The only quasi-notable Premishlaner Rebbe lives in Bnei Brak. Please advise me how to proceed. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Ratzd'mishukribo, thanks for contacting me. I would say there are two issues here, the past and the present. Premishlan is old and famous and has a history so focus on the facts of history and that should help support any conclusions. Then there is the present and if you know facts about the what has been going on in recent years with this then feel free to correct obvious mistakes. Also note that there are often modern Rebbes who take on old names to which they are not directly connected historically or even by genealogy. They just "capture" the name and use it even though the ones that went by that name have long petered out. I think these should be good basic guidelines. You should also ask User Yoninah (talk · contribs) to comment as well, and I suggest you must contact her in such situations and get her involved since she is very well-informed, does superior research and is willing to work hard to improve such articles because she really cares about them. Best wishes, IZAK (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Eulalia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Izak: your language and tone are again unacceptable. This has been going on for years now. Stop attacking anyone and everyone who disagrees with you or who votes in a way you don't happen to agree with. It is a violation of WP:AGF and I will make a complaint at WP:ANI. I am a senior editor and will not take abuse from anybody. Quis separabit? 21:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi there. I always cite proofs and logic in any AfC as is required. I do not make it personal. I am not "attacking" you or anyone else when I speak and get to the point. Can you point out the alleged "attacks" you don't like in this instance? I was focusing on content not on you or anyone. Unless I am mistaken, this allegation is an uncalled for surprise and just seems like a roundabout personal attack that comes from your WP:IDONTLIKEIT/HIM attitude that I find odd. Let's talk content, that'll be more productive. IZAK (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi again, I have just carefully re-read my comments and reasoning on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kashmiri descent from lost tribes of Israel AfD and I do not see a single instance where there was any violation of anything, let alone what you imagine was said. You are clearly out of order. Most editors agreed with me and supported my citations, logic and reasons of why the subject (that you outrageously belittled and demeaned in an uncalled for manner and in violation of WP:LAWYERING) that it should be kept, while few users had anything good to say or support your nomination to delete. You are therefore making an issue over WP:CONTENT and trying to conflate it into something it is not. IZAK (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Petraeus scandal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bush administration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Natalie Khawam for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Natalie Khawam is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Khawam until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Israeli-occupied territories, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom of Israel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Jill Kelley deletion
I agree that Jill Kelley should have a Wikipedia entry. One thing that makes this deletion seem outrageous to me is that I have tried unsuccessfully to delete a truly non notable entry, Eunice Penix, a small town commissioner in Dade City Florida, who cannot be considered as notable unless all small town commissioners in all small towns are notable. No other Dade City official has a Wikipedia entry, not even they mayor. Penix has an entry of about two lines, submitted by a relative, backed up by two small articles in a local paper about filing to run for another term, and yet Jill Kelley is somehow regarded as not notable. It is hard to figure. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- WP:SOFIXIT and nominate the Penix article for deletion. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- I fixed it for you [5]. Since you consider Ms. Penix an example of being truly non-notable, I'm sure you'll be anxious to participate. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Spam
Please don't spam unrelated AfD's with your little discussion. The AfD for Eunice Penix has exactly NOTHING to do with BLP1E. The fact that you didn't even bother to read the AfD discussion (the one that never mentions BLP1E at all) indicates you did it solely because I nominated it. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Nonsense. It is you that sits here on my talk page, stalking it, spotting a discussion, and then only because it's mentioned here on my talk page and in the one AfD, that you run off to nominate it for deletion. It is not "spamming" to notify concerned parties of discussions that concern them. I notified exactly 4 pages (the 3 AfDs and the 1 DRV page). That is not "spamming" by anyone's calculations, it is correct procedure. Had I gone to the talk pages of the close to 75 users of all the discussion it would be something else. But placing a notification on four discussion pages is not spamming, unless of course you are just mad at me now, and want to come up with wild accusations. Please stop it. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sits on your talk page? I came here regarding a totally separate discssion. It is spamming when you "notified" an unrelated AfD. Penix isn't a BLP1E case. There is no "one event" in here life....she is simply non-notable. It's not related. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- The matter can be discussed on the AfD talk page. Since you are so concerned about disruption, I'm sure you'll find that acceptable as it will prevent disruption of the actual AfD discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
new edit
I recently added this to an article, but would like someone to look over it. Crock8 (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Petraeus scandal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blogger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Aliya (singer) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aliya (singer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliya (singer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. MSJapan (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Modern Age (periodical) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Modern Age (periodical) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Age (periodical) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Herp Derp (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)