User talk:Mootros/Archives/2010/October

Referencing error on Robotic surgery

Dear Mootros,

I saw you recently edited the article Robotic surgery. Unfortunately there was an error in one of the references (the one named Estey): you never created a reference with any text, just two empty ref elements (<ref name=Estey />). This resulted in an error being displayed in the references section.

I've commented out both refs for now, to get rid of the error. Perhaps you can put the correct reference text in again at a later time.

Best regards, -- BenTels (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you BenTels. I've added the reference now. Best wishes, Mootros (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Mootros,

Thanks for your message and advice, I'll be sure to be in touch if I need any more help (quite likely, lol). Jane Janemccallion (talk) 08:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

how to write caption

Hi, considering your last deletion here, are you sure you want to keep deleting this valid citation? The caption has no other evidence of where it was taken and such information is required in the article rather than being embedded in another page. I'm sure there is no need to remind you of the 3RR guidelines. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contact. This is a caption and it is not necessary to reference this, unless it is controversial. Nobody is disputing this this was not the said place. Mootros (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Kindly read more about this here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(captions)

Please refer to WP:5P. I added the citation as I feel the photograph citation should have a supported context, my addition of the citation can be interpreted as it being disputed. Unless you think that I am nobody, then pillar #2 applies. Please revert your deletion. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are trying to say. Are saying that YOU dispute the fact that the image was taken in Northern Afghanistan? What context? Are images not supposed to illustrate the article? Why is it important where the image was taken? Have you read the MOS link? Mootros (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

My civil explanation was clear enough, your repeated deletions are a contravention of the fundamental principles as described in the guidelines I have directed you to. I have no intention of replying to an endless series of arbitrary questions. Would you prefer we now follow a dispute resolution process in order to let an independent party advise here or are you going to let this go? Fæ (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Death of Linda Norgrove. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

You have already breached the guidelines for 3RR, however I am prepared to avoid proceeding with a request for action if you revert your deletion and are prepared to explain your actions on the article talk page. If this does not happen, I will regretfully have to follow that process. Fæ (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Pls see talk page of article. Mootros (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Inquiry

Hi, advised by Wikipedia to enquire who you are and why you have requested a speedy deletion of the page Maurice Jay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mj2035 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mj2035, Thank you for contacting me. I am an editor at Wikipedia, writing under the name Mootros, since March 2008. I have more than 7000 edits, made significant contributions to a good article, and reviewed several articles that were GA nominated. About Maurice Jay, I have no connection to the subject, but requested a speedy deletion of the article because I deemed the subject of the article of no importance or significance: i.e. a real person, who appears NOT to meet criteria for notability for inclusion. I hope this helps. Yours, Mootros (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It's been taken to deletion review & you may want to comment. Just notifying you. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Mootros (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Maurice Jay

Hi, thank you for replying. I am in the process of updating, and hope my recent improvements, external links and cross-refernces to bonafide television and media articles have clarified the validity of the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mj2035 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. You may find this link useful: Wikipedia:Notability. Good luck! Mootros (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mootros,

Thanks for the article. I have now listed many third party reliable sources such as the independent television franchise holder for the region, Ulster Television; the largest independent local newspaper, the Belfast Telegraph and numerous government and charity organisations. Arguably far more independent references than many other wikipedia entries from similar broadcasters in our locale. I hope this will suffice.

When you say "good luck", does this infer you are not the arbiter on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mj2035 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's right I am not "arbiter" for this decision. I have only nominated deletion. The article has improved as a result and it looks like that it might stay. See here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maurice_Jay. Users are trying to come to an agreement whether to keep or delete it. Everybody can contribute to the discussion. However, if persons --with a vested personal interest on the subject-- comment, it might be viewed negatively.

Again thank you for your effort. Keep up the good work. All the best, Mootros (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: Please sign your messages like this ~~~~ . This will automatically generate a signature and time stamp at the end of your message.

Speedy deletion of Seamus McKee

Just a quick note to let you know that I removed the speedy deletion template you placed on Seamus McKee because the article did not seem to meet the speedy deletion criterion A7. In my opinion, being a nationally-recognised radio presenter on a BBC "Nation" radio station is a credible claim of significance

Please be aware that is normally inappropriate re-add a speedy deletion template when another editor (other than the creator of the article) has removed it, because speedy deletion is only for uncontroversial deletions. If you believe the article still needs to be deleted, please consider WP:PROD or WP:AFD which can be used for deletions which are not covered by the speedy deletion criteria.

I am not an administrator and I do not have any special authority in this matter. If you feel that I have made a mistake, please feel free to contact me on my talk page..

Thparkth (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Your opinion on the matter has been much appreciated! Mootros (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Maurice Jay

Hi Mootros,

I have tried valiently to add as much proof to the subjct as I possibly can. Thanks for your help on this. I have to say that this entry had been in existance from 2006, and for whatever reason now seems to be the subject of much scrutiny?? Also, none of the rules that are now being applied seemed to be in existance when it was first created; so I was never aware of autobiographical restirctions, inline citations or suchlike. If given the external links and references I have provided, the arbitor still doesn't think the inclusion is worthy, then so be it; as personally I believe that in comparison to some entires of a similar nature, there is more than enough evidence to suggest otherwise. I would perhaps suggest that to gauge of how much interest the subject is, Wikipedia could analyse the hits to the page over the last four years, of which I have no knowledge, to see if there is genuine public interest? Just a thought.

Thanks again....

Mj2035 (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mj2035,

Don't worry. It's arbitrary as to why now; quality control is a continuous process... I checked [1] the frequency: from Sept 06 to Sept 10 it got 4,649 hits that's about five a day, peaking on 8th Sept 2009 with 41 hits... Compare Death_of_Linda_Norgrove with 38,997 in the last four weeks. But, these numbers might not say much; guidelines about notability will probably be a better indicator. Personally, I think now it just needs a bit more work (starting point here: footnotes within the text that link the references at the bottom) and all should be fine.

Cheers, Mootros (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: Here a random example how to do these citations. Insert this at the end of the sentence you would like to reference : <ref name=guardian1>{{cite web|author=Peter Beaumont |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/09/linda-norgrove-profile-aid-worker |title=Linda Norgrove profile: aid worker was in love with Afghanistan|publisher=The Guardian |date=9 October 2010} |accessdate=9 October 2010}}</ref>

If you would like to cite this article again at the end of another sentence than you just added this <ref name=guardian1 /> Easy. :)

Award of Good Fellowship

		Good Fellowship Award
		I am honored to present you with this Award of Good Fellowship for your courtesy to a new editor in improving the article Maurice Jay. Encouraging a new editor's participation with both consideration and kindness is one of the surest ways to both keep new editors and to make Wikipedia a better place... and you have done both. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Good man! Mootros (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Gentility is always appreciated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

MJ cont..

Hi Mootros,

Now that it's inclusion has been set to "keep" and I have addressed and continue to do so, the inline citations etc... I presume it is ok to remove the various warnings on the page now? Mj2035 (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mj2035, The AfD tag should automatically disappear after the decision has formally been made. You may think this sounds rather bureaucratic, but it has the advantage that there will be a permanent record on the talk page of the article. This sets a precedent and means that in the future --if anybody would suggest to deletion again--- it would be more difficult to make such a case. It's probably just a matter of few more days; I'll keep an eye on it. About the other tags, they can be removed by anyone, supposedly after the issues are fixed. Mootros (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)