User talk:Strange Passerby/archive2

Hi

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eagles247 - the candidate has answered your questions, I read that the answers to the question will help determine your vote. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 12:09pm • 02:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I am aware. However the answers have not convinced me either way therefore am remaining neutral. Best, Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Very well then :) I just thought I'd notify you in case you weren't watching the page. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 12:26pm • 02:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Multi-sport events

Any thoughts on creating a WikiProject Multi-sport events? In light of the proposed creation of WikiProject Commonwealth Games. The CWG can be a taskforce under it (although its the second most well-known, its prestige is somewhere below). I've said a thing or two about this in the WikiProject CWG proposal page. Cheers, ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 12:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems a good idea. Would support. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 13:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I will draft a proposal. Will update you on it. Thanks, ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 14:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The proposal is up, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Multi-sport events. Do chip in and discuss/support the proposal! Thanks, ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 15:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK

(Note that I removed one hook, and did a minor rewording on the second. But that's not relevant here.)

I removed the hook because it's essentially a plot summary. It's not an interesting fact, it's a fiction. It's a lie, it's an invention, it's an untruth, someone made it up. It did not happen. It is not a fact.

I would have intercepted it earlier but I've been very busy these past several days. DS (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, my bad on that one. Regarding the other: the way the hook is presented, "in the film...", it's a fact. Just saying it might have been a good idea to discuss it, but I'll defer to you on this. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 00:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on GAN of Sam Oldham

Had a reading of the article. I didn't spot any issues, and it looks good and GA-worthy. My concern is that if the article is to retain GA status for a while, it has to be updated often since the subject is still relatively young and more and more will be known about him as the years pass. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 10:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I really think you should just go ahead and do the review per the GA criteria, but thanks anyway. StrPby (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, I have to say that my inexperience in GAN coupled with my frequent interaction with you makes it wiser for me to leave someone else to the job. Nice signature btw, haha. Regards, ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 13:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's your mobile signature. Still nice though. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 13:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's the sig I use for my alt account for use in camp. On my mobile I use my normal acct... Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 13:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK

Hey I nominated another article I just expanded and was wondering can you review it and tell me if its good or anything like that? Thanks. AJona1992 (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'll get to it as soon as possible. :) Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 04:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Aww thank you very much! AJona1992 (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, the article's still a bit short. It needs about 7,000 more characters to qualify as a 5x expanded article for DYK. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 04:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

w.e IDC anymore I am tired of trying peace. AJona1992 (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"Older nominations" marker at Template talk:Did you know

Please do not move the "Older nominations" marker before the 5 day nomination period is expired for the dates under the header. As Wikipedia operates under UTC, it is possible for articles created on October 2 to still be submitted (for another 11 hours) and still be entirely within the 5 day period allowed by DYK rules. If there is a lack of usable hooks below this header, there is no prohibition against taking hooks from dates that are still accepting new submissions. --Allen3 ^talk 12:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, it does say on our additional rules page that older nominations are accepted as long as the date is on the page, so it doesn't make much of a difference. That said, yes, my bad, I kind of had a brain freeze and forgot that 23:59, 2 October + 5 days hasn't been reached yet. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 13:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Answer DYK word list

I answered there: User_talk:Yug#DYK_nomination_of_word_lists_by_frequency Yug (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Again. Thanks for your explanations Yug (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Tagging with {{WikiProject Multi-sport events}}

I'm gonna take the time to tag all multi-sport event articles with {{WikiProject Multi-sport events}}. If you do the same... well its likely we would visit the same article talk pages often, but hey that serves as a check. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 12:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sam Oldham

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth Games Village 2010

As you've commented on a similar discussion earlier, I hope you would participate in this AfD and comment on the matter. Thank you. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 06:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

List of multi-sport events

Hey if you've got the time to, would you mind reviewing List of multi-sport events? Go ahead and critique it, so I know where it can be improved. Thanks, ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 07:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Source the text. Remove the numbering in the list, it's really arbitrary and without rhyme or reason. Suggest listing by number of countries, number of athletes, or alphabetically. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 07:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Puebla

I gave up on GA or FA long ago. Not worth the trouble. Dr Blofeld, who has a lot more experience than I do, tried to get Oaxaca to GA status but it got ripped apart. But thanks for the Attagirl :D Thelmadatter (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK query

Regarding Template_talk:Did_you_know#For_November_3, I struck out my prior objection. I have no objections to any of the proposed hooks. Do you think one of them can be "confirmed"? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. I'd find it inappropriate for me to be approving either of my alternate hooks. Everything else meets criteria so really it's almost there, just need to wait for another independent reviewer to approve it. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 09:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Perhaps you could comment there that everything else meets criteria? :) -- Cirt (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 10:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Mary MacKillop

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

re:Your userspace "game"

I shall delete the game as per the mentioned rules. But i may not be kind enoigh to delet the world storm season as ma lot many users have their very own game like userpages and their own cyclone seasons. (See Anhamirak) --Anirudh Emani (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue. How many of these do you know of? I'd go around to leave them all a kind note, before taking to WP:MFD. This doesn't seem appropriate for Wikipedia. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I only know Iune, seeing him, i created mine. Anirudh Emani (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Hello, I've changed the pages to read like this: User:Anhamirak/CycloneSeason/10, User:Anhamirak/CycloneSeason/09, User:Anhamirak/CycloneSeason/08. Will this be okay? I want the edit histories to survive, so will this be a good compromise? Thanks, — Iune(talk) 16:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems fair to me, thanks for taking my concerns into consideration. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 16:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2010 Summer Youth Olympics medal table/archive1

Sorry Strange Passerby, I think I should have notified you earlier. Anyway, 2010 Summer Youth Olympics medal table (no, not the medal winners article, just the medal table) is up on FLC as you can see here. I'm co-nominating you, hope you don't mind sharing the honours :) Regards, ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome :) We're clashing here and there, but that's good for WP at least. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you return to your break, I've got things covered. Take some time off. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Returning to slumber in... 5 minutes. Do enjoy your day! ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 06:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Getting 2010 Summer Youth Olympics medal table to FLC

Hi Strange Passerby, I think 2010 Summer Youth Olympics medal table is suitable for FLC. Since you were one of the primary contributors to the article, anything to say about it? Looking forward to your comments, ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 11:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you in, I intend to turn this into an FT! I suppose I do need help with that. Cheers, ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 11:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm also interested in getting List of 2010 Summer Youth Olympics medal winners to FL-class. I had a chat with Dabomb87, who commented on removing the red-links; he had no objection to it. I'm not sure if the OLYCON convention applies here since its the Youth Olympics, but I've asked and there's been no reply. Barring no objections, this can go on FLC. You can do the honours and nominate it. If not I'll send it in for FLC with a co-nomination a few days from now. Cheers, ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• We can't have it both ways. If your argument for delinking is OLYCON doesn't apply "since its the Youth Olympics", then I don't think we could legitimately make the argument at AFD and elsewhere that the Youth Olympics are just as notable as the senior Olympics (and thus would be protected by WP:ATHLETE). It's either the Youth Olympics is covered by the Olympic guidelines (for notability etc), or it isn't. I would be against mass delinking (but would support delinking limited to removal of links from members of medal-winning teams in team sports). Also, I think a further section could be added on multiple medal winners (past lists like these have them). I'd like to add that and come to some sort of agreement on the delinking before an FLC. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 08:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the Youth Olympics is as equally notable as the senior Olympics, because it isn't. However it has enough notability to not fail AfD or other notability guidelines. Now, for the athletes' articles. While any Olympic athlete deserves an article per se, athletes who have participated in the Commonwealth Games or any other multi-sport event do not. No one as I recall so far has edited the notability guidelines to include the Youth Olympics in WP:ATHLETE or WP:OLYMPICS's MOS. It's a slight reword of "just as notable as the senior Olympics". In this regard, your suggestion that addresses articles on athletes of medal-winning teams in team sports can be extended to athletes in individual sports. Why not? ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 08:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Paralympic medal winners are considered notable; other Paralympians are generally not (unless they've done something else that makes them so). This is the standard to which I hold the Youth Olympics (and Commonwealths etc) – medal winners are notable, as are individual events at these Games. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 08:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you know; adult events are typically more prestigious and sought after than their junior counterparts. Then again, the Paralympics exclude able-bodied adults. The relative notability of these three events — the Paralympics, the Commonwealth Games, the YOG — when compared against each other is a grey area. Maybe we should make a special allowance in this case. Things take time to mature; so will our youth athletes and their articles. I say let's put it on FLC and we'll have more opinions. Red-links as I recall have not been explicitly forbidden, but I daresay they have to do something about all that red-links. What do you think? Just go for it since its not exactly impinging quality standards. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 08:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

We can't say for sure that a majority (>50%) of athletes will get articles, but we can say for sure reaching that percentage, or even just 25%, will take years. Unless we circumvent this by creating articles for medal-winning athletes in individual sports. OLYCON was formulated without the YOG in mind. I'm not convinced this fails to meet Olympic or FL guidelines. If nothing major is holding us back, we should attempt FLC, where greater consesus can form. What does not kill us will only make us wiser. So attempt it, would you say? ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 09:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that as Olympic medal winners, they're all already notable under WP:ATH ("Sports figures are presumed notable if they ... have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics" – emphasis mine). It wouldn't hurt to leave them all readlinks and go around creating stubs. I really see no rush in an FLC. I've got a couple of days off. Give me until Wednesday and I'll do the stubbing. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 09:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Creating the articles solves the root problem. I can help if you want me to! I think this might have been done for List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners, since there are many stubs such as 1, 2 and 3. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 11:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Stubbing has started: User:Strange Passerby/stubs created. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I can help with stubbing. I can begin from the bottom of the list if you were to start from the top. Are you doing so right now? ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 15:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Please go from the bottom, yes. Not right now, I'm trying to create List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners at the moment actually. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Also, I'm hoping to expand Mixed-NOCs participation at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics further and hopefully that can go up for FLC too soon. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 08:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Great. I'm not sure about {{hidden}}, since it might cause issues when the article is printed. I think too that there should only be one medal summary in the infobox, the second medal summary can be placed somewhere else or expressed as plain text. Just my thoughts. Cheers, ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 08:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Have to disagree on that. Can you give me a reason why both can't exist in the same infobox? It's useful information to have at a glance rather than having to search through text. There's nothing wrong with that. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 08:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It actually takes some time to comprehend what the explanation is trying to say. The phrasing is precise, but its an added degree of comprehension needed. Which is not what infoboxes are meant for. We can simply point out there are more intricate details than what is presented, and prod the users to the right section.

That's still not answering the question. That may be so but there's nothing against both existing in the same infobox, surely. It's an important detail which may well be lost in text. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 08:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)!

Essentially, an infobox provides quick reference to major details without delving too deeply in detail. The difference between medals won in both categories takes a while to understand. We can simply say "medals won in events where teams representing individual NOCs also participate are also counted." Any serious researcher will get the cue. And so only one table is presented with a one-sentence explanation, with the second table probably hosted in another section, and he or she can't possibly miss it. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 09:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, at the risk of WP:OWN, I'm adamant the 1–0–2 should be mentioned in the infobox. It's an important detail (arguably more important than the 9–8–11). Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 09:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

See the bottom half of this page for my proposed solution. Do you think its fine? ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 11:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say this article would have to go the GA/FA route instead of FL. See the comments in this failed FL nomination. Generally, Event at the XX Olympics and Nation at the XX Olympics are considered 'articles' and not lists. See Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics and Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics (both are GAs) as well. I think just introduce the event as well as explain the results, and GA would be easily within reach. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 11:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, would prefer 1–0–2 be mentioned over 9–8–11, or both mentioned. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 11:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Geez, if you go about and think about the origins of this article. Its about teams made up of athletes representing different National Olympic Committees (NOCs) participating in the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics (yes I copied it). The demarcation of the two types of events they participated in comes only as a logical extension when explaining the topic. Readers just want to know the medals won by all the mixed-NOCs. My proposed solution would allow them to note the difference already; if they are interested in finding out more, they can read up at the Medal summary section. Its kind of, you know, not all-that-important. If you still insist... well we can wait till its ready for GA or whatever and seek opinions from third-parties. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 11:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I still don't get why you insist on changing the status quo. If GA is the new aim I see nothing wrong with how it is currently presented. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 11:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#Purpose of an infobox. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 11:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are there city names in the Judo section? Weird. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 11:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Teams were named after cities. I'd be agreeable to removing them. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 11:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure lah. Maybe you can explain how they come about, since they're the official titles (are they?). If they were not used in the results documents, I suppose removing them is good. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 11:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they were in the official results. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 11:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I suppose we just need to explain the usage of the city names. And there'll be no problem. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 11:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Links to athletes' articles in team sports

• Personally, I think we should de-link articles of athletes in the team sports of football, handball and volleyball. I would think in the case of the senior Olympics, these kind of team sport athletes' articles would just scrape by in terms of notability; not so for the YOG. In essence, applying what was done to field hockey to these three team sports. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 15:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm in agreement. Just didn't find the time to delink the rest. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Article about western azerbaijan

how come the article wasn't deleted? It cites the president of azerbaijan as a source. how is that relevant? the whole article does not cite a single reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninetoyadome (talk • contribs) 20:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The article was speedy kept as your AFD was judged to have been made in bad faith, disruptively. StrPby (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologys

Sorry for putting talkheaders on unecciary pages, It wont happen again. At least I am putting talkheaders on relevant pages to contribute to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakinglord (talk • contribs) 02:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Flag of Burma

--TFOWR 16:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Lerdthenerd

Thanks. I agree that there are a number of obvious issues with the candidacy that will very likely make it fail, but with a somewhat experienced user like this it's more useful to (gently) point those problems out so that he can actively work on them.
Cheers, Amalthea 09:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I should be the one thanking you for pointing it out, as I said, I'd gotten the wrong impression from the self-nom and without your fast response I prbably wouldn't have realised and been able to fix my error so fast. StrPby (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olli Petra

Hi Strange Passerby, I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olli Petra and the issue pertains to your field of work. Think you might want to say a thing or two about it. Cheers, ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 12:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

1936

Good list you have there. Could withstand further copy-editing, but would certinately be a credible FLC after that was done. Courcelles 02:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Maybe I was a bit too hasty in going straight for an FLC there. Learning process I guess! Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What variety of English are you trying to write in? I can detect echoes of at least three varieties. Courcelles 03:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? Wow, my bad, heh. I'm a bit of a weird one, I like the US style of written dates (Month Day, Year) but I was trying for British English. I guess I'm just too desensitised to the different grammars and everything; the only thing that gets my goat is English spelling differences. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 03:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think I've whittled out the differences so the prose is in BritEng, and the date formats are in AmEng. Of course, FLC is likely to criticise this, so which way would you like it to go; each is about as easy. Courcelles 03:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What's the time-line for this going to FLC? Courcelles 12:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually... it's already there. *red face* I might have kind of jumped the gun on this one, as I said above. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 12:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well, I think it's ready. Though I probably shouldn't support it since my fingerprints are all over the thing now! Courcelles 17:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I moved the 1956 list into mainspace recently, do you want to give it an once-over for an FLC after the '36 one closes? Courcelles 19:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing, would be happy to. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 01:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Check hook time?

Hi, would you check WT:Did you know#Hook move and confirm that it's correct? Thanks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners

-- Cirt (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for American Samoa constitutional referendum, 2010

Gatoclass (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem?

Hi, I have some questions about a copyright violation that you reported about my article. I'm new to this thing, and that article was my first time posting, so I don't really understand what the problem is. I would really appreciate it if you could explain the problem further. Should I ask my questions on this discussion page or is there another way to contact you privately? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teddy0408 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry your first effort had to be tagged for possible infringement. Upon reviewing the article and comparing it to the source you provided, I felt the article too closely paraphrased the source. Changing a few words isn't enough. That said, I grant that this is subjective, so if you'd like a second or third opinion, I recommend asking User:moonriddengirl or User:VernoWhitney what they think. Best regards, StrPby (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Help on Improving TestOut Corporation Article

Hi. The TestOut Corporation article I wrote has been recommended for deletion. I would like to improve the article so that it meets Wikipedia's standards. I tried hard when writing it to not be promotional, but apparently I failed at that. Could you please give me feedback of what I can do to change the article so that it is acceptable? Also, is this the correct place to post this question or should I post it somewhere else? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmhwriter (talk • contribs) 15:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that your article was written entirely promotionally, you failed to indicate why the corporation might be notable under our guidelines, which requires significant coverage of the corporation in multiple reliable secondary sources. You need to assert notability (and back it up with sources) if you want to prevent it from being deleted. The spamminess we can deal with after that if you manage to do the former. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 15:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Puerto Rico at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics Leonardo Fabricio Soares da Costa Academy of Sciences of Albania İpek Şenoğlu Narek Machkalyan Court Martial (horse) 2011 European Youth Summer Olympic Festival Abdul Aziz (footballer) Meredith Heron Et'hem Bey Mosque Our Day Out (play) Polytechnic University of Tirana 2011 Winter Universiade Mighty Muggs Safiullah Khan European Gay and Lesbian Sport Federation Amir Gul Archbishop of Tirana Holland-on-Sea

Cleanup Agricultural University of Tirana Lite-Brite Belgium at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics Merge Treloar School Flora of Singapore Wet dock Add Sources Glo Worm Hungary at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics Upwords Wikify Jetix (Arab World) Sit 'n Spin Federal Palace Hotel Expand Singapore Youth Olympic Games Organising Committee Sri Lanka at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics Raghu Engineering College

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of 1956 Winter Olympics medal winners

Cbl62 (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

FYI - re Daniel Callegaro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - pie

- see User_talk:Daniel_Callegaro#Ad - esp. my last line!

I copied his reply to there from my talk page - he'd added it to the discussion you & I had there.

Talk further here, if/when you care to. Enjoy your wp:wikibreak in the meantime.

Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2010 Summer Youth Olympics medal table/archive1

Hi there, will need your help answering some of the queries since I'm not confident I have the time to reply within the next two days. Thanks, ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 14:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

ITN for 2010 Formula One season

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

vandalism

I would just like to thank you (belatedly) for catching and reverting the vandalism to my user page :) --Kudpung (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing, no problem! Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 09:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:ROLLBACK

Have a look at the section 'When to use rollback', and check out point 2. I didn't mean any offence but I already have the ITN/C page on my watchlist, so I didn't need the talkback message. I appreciate your comments on my somewhat hasty posting of the recent item and will endeavour to wait a little longer in the future. Best regards, Stephen 09:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I really have no problem with you reverting my talkback message, don't worry. Thanks for taking my concerns regarding ITNC into account. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 09:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

FL advice

Hey, I saw that you're an active reviewer at WP:FLC, and I wonder if you have a moment to give me your opinion. I recently started an overhaul at List of fighter aircraft, and I was wondering what the consensus is at FL regarding references for lists of this type (i.e. navigational-aid type lists, all of whose entries link to a full article on the subject). Do you think we'd need to source each entry in that table in order to be considered for FL, or is it acceptable to rely on the sourcing in the individual aircraft articles? Thanks in advance for your time. SnottyWong ^prattle 16:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd hardly call myself an "active reviewer"; I've only just started getting into reviewing, having had one FLC of my own just pass and another under review. In any case, my own opinion on it would be that every entry should be sourced, but this may well not be the consensus. I suspect a single source covering all the entries would work too. Also, as an aside, a bit more prose in the lede would be nice. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 17:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

David Hughes works

Hi My name is Dr Peter Bruce, independent scholar, Ph D (Sydney French Studies) Ph D (Sydney (Australian History) Ma. Ed (Paris) etc etc. I'm interested in the career of David Hughes, a rather successful British sixties-style novelist, and am hoeing into the novels one-by-one and giving brief outlines for Wikipedia. What's the problem with this format? Cheers Pete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbruce01 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, Wikipedia does not accept articles which are solely plot. If you could add information on their critical acclaim, or how well the books sold, or impact on society etc, backed up by reliable sources, it would be no problem. However, the article I nominated for deletion, But for Bunter, is unfortunately only made up of a plot summary. I'd be happy to withdraw the deletion nomination if you could add the other information suggested. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 05:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Note also that the "quotes" sections may constitute "trivia" at best, or copyright infringement at worst. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 05:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It was hopefully work that would be taken up by someone who has access to that information. My idea is less to create a definitive article than to get the ball rolling with some sort of integrity. I've done the same thing for three others of his novels, so you may as well de-list them too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbruce01 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)