User talk:Drappel

Click here for my stats and here for my contributions and Email me here

Welcome!

Hello, Drappel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --El on ka 02:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Drappel. Thank you for reverting vandalism to Wikipedia. After you revert, I would recommend also warning the users whose edits you revert on their talk pages with an appropriate template or custom message. This will serve to direct new users towards the sandbox, educate them about Wikipedia, and a stern warning to a vandal may prevent him or her from vandalizing again. Thanks! Raven4x4x 06:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is some great job you are doing. As has already been said, please warn the vandals, and please sign your comment with ~~~~ when you put a comment on some Talk page. Cheers, and hope you have a good stay here. --soum^সৌমোyasch 08:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bots and bugs in “foreign” language characters

On the talk page for Martin23 you commented at 16:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC) on the item User_talk:Martinp23#foreign_language_character_bug asking for an example.

Perhaps you did not see my post just below it User_talk:Martinp23#Suspected_conflict_of_bot_edits_with_non_Latin_Alphabet at 20:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC) in it I gave the example of Emerald Buddha you probably missed it because I attempted a Neutral Point of View by refering to the “non Latin Alphabet rather than calling it foreign. --Drappel 03:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for an example after it was fixed; the one you pointed to was at 19:35, while the first bot edit after it was fixed is at 23:03. --cesarb 11:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Military Operations in the 2006 Lebanon War

Hi there - you and I both independently had the same opinion about the edits to this page by User talk:213.219.16.20 so thought I'd let you know that s/he has calmed down a bit now and seems to be more prepared to engage in constructive editing in the future (see the IP talk page for our discussion). Just a thought: your last edit summary on that page might be thought to be a little insensitive by those who are more emotionally involved in the topic than I am. I don't want you to be called nasty names as well! Best wishes, Bencherlite 17:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied with note and a copy of mine to 213.219.16.20 which was:

I have removed the repetitive entry from every single day; however I see that I am not the first, nor I suspect the last to do this.
My objection is not the fact that the daily (I will accept as a matter of good faith that it was in fact daily) use of rocketry is being noted but the way of its inclusion. Some days, for instance July 28, already have a record of the rocketry included in the narrative; by giving details and even citation for that days rocketry the entry for the day has considerably more believability.

Let us hope that there is a resolution to the matter --Drappel 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely put. Bencherlite 17:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert tag edit war.

I have placed the following on those talk pages for the schools mentioned which have entries.

There appears to be an anonymous user with a dynamically assigned, variable, IP address

82.26.98.237 contributions
82.26.99.28 contributions
83.26.102.63 contributions
82.26.102.218 contributions
82.26.106.254 contributions
82.26.107.31 contributions
82.26.107.104 contributions
82.62.108.103 contributions
82.26.110.9 contributions
82.26.111.152 contributions
to name a few.
Who has for some reason, either simple mischief, dislike of the city of Portsmouth England or its educational establishments or some other reason not apparent, decided to repeatedly call by one method or another for the deletion of a set of articles.

South Downs College (Portsmouth)
Mayfield School (Portsmouth)
City of Portsmouth Boys' School
The Portsmouth Grammar School
Portsmouth High School (Southsea) a subdivision of Portsmouth
St John's College (Portsmouth)
City of Portsmouth Girls' School
Priory School (Portsmouth)

Similarly this user has recently made changes to the main Portsmouth page by unlinking
Highbury College, Portsmouth College, South Downs College and Havant College Admiral Lord Nelson School, City of Portsmouth Girls' School, King Richard School, Mayfield School, Milton Cross School, Priory School, Springfield School, St Edmund's RC School, St Luke's C of E VA Secondary School and City of Portsmouth Boys' School.

In addition as, user Simon S Sumpton (since blocked) this user seems to have created diverts for
Admiral Lord Nelson School (Portsmouth)
King Richard Secondary School (Portsmouth)
Milton Cross School (Portsmouth)
Springfield School (Portsmouth)
St Edmund's RC School (Portsmouth)
St Luke's School (Portsmouth).

It might be suggested that the user is attempting by a series of guerrilla actions to use Wikipedia policies and procedures in an attempt to get administrators to remove all traces of many if not all educational establishments in the Portsmouth area.

While the standard of some of these articles is poor, their removal will not encourage those who have an interest in them to make the necessary improvements to bring them up to an acceptable level.

Deletion would also defeat the objective of the Wiki Schools Project, as the majority of articles it deals with are of this type, and more notable education establishments articles are with other projects, such as Wiki Universities Project.

Information.
ISP NTL a British ISP has a block of IP addresses from 82.0.0.0 to 82.31.255.255 with addresses 82.26.96.0 to 82.26.111.255 assigned to the NTL branch at Winchester in the county of Hampshire (the same county as Portsmouth).

In addition, I have to the best of my knowledge reverted the unnecessary requests for review on the grounds of notability. -- Drappel 16:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on noting all that down. I've been trying to follow the users actions over the past weeks. Because of the dynamic IP though the user cant really be blocked. I might suggest that you ask the pages - Portsmouth and the schools etc be semi protected to prevent damage until the user loses interest. Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection - I would be happy to conominate the articles for semi protection with you. The other alternative is to simply watch the pages and attempt manual revert - though I think it is now an official edit war so protection would be best. Let me know your thoughts.LordHarris 17:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied with
Thanks for your kind words regarding the Revert tag edit war (for Portsmouth Schools). I thought I would give it 24 hours or so to see if the Pompey-phobic gives up rather than make an early call for page protection. My hope being that the unhelpful edits will stop when the user realises that hiding on the internet is not as simple as (s)he may think and that it is possible and relatively easy to track and revert edits. -- Drappel 17:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of tags, an attempt has now been made to remove all articles via merging (along with a lot of others) - see Portsmouth and the talk page.LordHarris 08:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links to schools in the Portsmouth article. Whilst I appreciate that you are in disagreement over the merge tags, the links were correctly removed as they are all red links or redirects to the Portsmouth article. If you are going to create articles adding the linking is fine. However, if you are not the links should be removed until someone creates an article. Circular linking should be avoided. Nuttah68 11:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied with My bulk reinstatement of the linking was because the circular references were created by the 82.26.xxx.xxx bandit under his user name Simon S Sumpton (since blocked), articles for various schools were linked back to the main article in, I must assume an effort to hide them or prevent their creation as part of a campaigning against the city of Portsmouth. Point of information, I am a resident of Southampton and have no great love of Portsmouth but do not see this as reason to sit back while Portsmouth (through its Wikipedia page) is being belittled. -- Drappel 12:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who created them, and the user you accuse has also placed merge tags on all Southampton articles, the circular references fail this guideline and should be removed. Nuttah68 12:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I have been concerned about this edit warring by this mysterious user as well. Especially since most of the articles targeted have been marked as "mid" or "high" importance by the Wiki Schools Project, hence the need to protect them. Camaron1 | Chris 17:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Fire and the 82.26.xxx.xxx Bandit

My erroneous edit to Mayville High School was in an attempt to revert the vandalism by 82.26.107.104 (contributions) that took place 06:15, 8 April 2007 to the page. It seems that the guerrilla tactics by the 82.26.xxx.xxx Bandit are causing a number of incidents of friendly fire. -- Drappel 18:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soton merges

Hi Drappel, I'm probably too late, but you don't need to add your opposition on every talk page, just Talk:Southampton :). I plan to remove all the merge tags today anyway, since there's nothing but opposition to it. Thanks, Joe D (t) 22:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are too late, I think I had just finished the Southampton area/schools and Portsmouth area/schools that Notability Crusader (contributions) and 82.26.107.104 (contributions), who are either one and the same or share a common purpose, had been engaged in a guerrilla action against. I was about to start removing the tags and pointing to the talk page for my rational. As a matter of interest did you look here and also here? -- Drappel 22:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your great work and efforts on the Portsmouth and Southampton group of articles. Well done! LordHarris 11:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Portsmouthians are way better than Sotonians :-) .....

Replied:-

A quick note of thanks for the Barnstar: Users are enjoined to be bold and get involved and while an immeasurably small percentage of people will ever know of the merge tag episode I am ticked pink by the award. -- Drappel 18:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just to say thank you for your help dealing with my opposition to the merger proposal for Bispham High School Arts College which linked into the Portsmouth and Southampton merger proposals simply because the proposer (who appears to have been using these merger proposals to make a point rather than discussing them anywhere) chose the school seemingly at random after they saw it mentioned on the Wikipedia Schools project talk page. Not being sure what to do about this, your help in supporting my opposition to the merger and removal of the tag has been really useful, and much appreciated. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 15:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied:-

You are welcome; it is a shame that Bispham High School Arts College got caught in the crossfire. I know how difficult it is to put together an acceptably cited entry for a school, especially one with a short history, having spent the best part of a day on Admiral Lord Nelson School (Portsmouth) back when the Portsmouth nonsense first started.

I must say the infobox and logo make the page look very professional, I must do the same later in the week.

You might find these links useful, assuming I have the right school.

Have a good week. -- Drappel 17:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, those links look as though they could be very useful indeed!!! A BIG thanks for that. The infobox I added gives a page that bit extra, and it would be a good idea to put one on the Admiral Lord Nelson School (Portsmouth) page - even just copying the above infobox and changing the wording. Just glad that all this got resolved so quickly! ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not a complaint but an observation

Copy of message left elsewhere.

Cross posted on the talk pages of AlleborgoBot and EmxBot

Both these robots seem as best as I can tell are making corrections to the style of dates in a character set I don’t recognise and to the order of listing in the “in other languages” box.

If both bots are pursuing exactly the same aim then all well and good but if either is doing a subset of the other the second one will be making an edit where it could have been done only once had both bots been pursuing exactly the same goal.

To date I have not seen any conflicts between these bots, but since they are editing pages on my watchlist I don’t want the prospect of a bot driven edit war.

Thanks -- Drappel 15:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 30

Why did you remove this entry *2007 - Release date of the memoir At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA authored by George Tenet. EnviroGranny 02:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied with:

In short I did not remove the entry *2007 - Release date of the memoir At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA authored by George Tenet. From April 30. However, although it was not I that removed it, now you have drawn it to my attention I would say that I do not consider it an entry of sufficient importance to be recorded there, which may have been the thoughts of the editor that removed the entry along with another, perhaps after it has sold a few million copies it may be a notable book.

Kindly retract and/or direct your accusation elsewhere. --Drappel 03:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added reminder to EnviroGranny

I am still waiting, and see you have been making unjust accusations elsewhere. --Drappel 18:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning...I do not want you posting any further comments on my talk page, if it happens again, I will report it as vandalism. Bye EnviroGranny 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the World Snooker Championships not notable?

How is the WORLD Snooker Championships not notable? I'm not adding the Masters or the UK Open this the highest achievement in this sport. Just because Amercan's don't play it doesn't mean it's not popular. Jimmmmmmmmm 13:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied with

Firstly I am sorry if you feel aggrieved that an entry you have made to the historic events section of the “this day in history” pages has been removed, it is nothing personal. Also to correct your wild assumption of my nationality I am British, or more precisely English and resident in Hampshire.

Further while you will have noticed edits that I have made to snooker you seem to have overlooked my removal in the last 48 hours of: Super Bowl entries, North American Ice Hockey games, opening of some American Sports stadium, NASCAR events, the death of an American race horse. Also from events: Elvis receiving his draft papers as well as the birth of Jesus Christ and the death of Stonewall Jackson, both of which were already in their correct sections on the page, the silly coincidence in American date time format of 1:23:45 6/7/89 from 7th June, some American Rap Artists 8th album and the first 30 minute episode of the Simpsons.

All those having been noticed while reverting a hundred vanity birth entries, which of course indicates why if you post items to days around the current day as with your Snooker ones they will get noticed.

Please feel free to put back the more notable of the entries, I won’t remove them but there is every possibility that others will, I saw somebody else’s edit summary mentioning their feeling of non-notability. --Drappel 14:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5 May 2007 changes to June 13 page

Thank you for explaining why it was removed . . . that's more than Opelio provided in his 6 March delete. I will create an article when I get the change. --BlueResistance 22:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job patrolling the day pages

Just dropping a compliment for your hard work on keeping the day pages clear of irrelevant additions. Nice work! Sifaka ^talk 22:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of comment to Hemanshu

Hi I undid your revision made to January 11 because I believe such a major change to the format of the page should be discussed. Since if one is changed then all 367 day pages will need to be changed I must ask are you prepared to do that yourself? --Drappel 12:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Michael Lewis (poet) from August 31

You reverted my edit to August 31. May I point out that Michael Lewis is a disambiguation page and none of the people listed there, other than the yet to be created Michael Lewis (poet), is a poet, and none of them were born on August 31, 1963? I would normally revert your edit as misguided, but I wish to give you the opportunity to explain why you think what you did improved Wikipedia. Chromaticity 17:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied with:

What I did was to remove a redlink birth from the “this day in history “ page, had I previously noticed that Michael Lewis was pointing to a Disambiguation page I would have removed it, or had there been a Michael Lewis (poet) page pointed the entry from the “this day in history” page to it, your changing it to a redlink only drew it to my attention.

The reason I removed the entry, which as explained above I would have done had I noticed it was a link to nowhere anyway, was to preserve the birth section free of any redlink births, you may not have noticed but the “this day in history” pages are the target for constant additions by people of them selves or their friends when they have no Wikipedea article.

If you care about the person write the Wikipedea article then put him back. That is of course if the Wikipedea article passes the criteria for inclusion, if it does not it will be deleted by an admin.

As is made clear in many places around Wikipedia editors actions are nothing personal, you may feel aggrieved but every redlink that is let past only encourages the vandals. --Drappel 18:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on my talk. Chromaticity 18:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Your statements above are inconsistent with the facts. You did not remove the entry, and you have yet to do so. Instead, you reverted it to pointing to the disambiguation page. As far as I can tell, you have yet to correct this, and even persist in making statements that indicate to me that you haven't even familiarized yourself with the edit I actually made, which is quite disappointing. I didn't "insert" a redlink. I disambiguated an existing link to a disambiguation page by replacing it with a redlink. You seem to acknowledge this, but not entirely, which I find both confusing and disappointing.

You also seem to have made a gross error in assuming my intentions in editing the article. I have no idea who "Michael Lewis, poet" is. For all I know, he doesn't exist. What I found is that the August 31 article claimed that some person named Michael Lewis, a poet, was born on August 31, and yet none of the people found at the disambiguation page met those characteristics. I therefore disambiguated the reference on the day page to a (yet to be created) article. This was clear from my edit summary, which you apparently did not read. You reversed this. In my opinion, Wikipedia is better off with a redlink on the day page than a bluelink to a disambiguation; therefore, I am going to revert you. You may, if you so desire, remove the relink; I don't care one way or the other. All I know is that the state of the article as you left it is wrong.

It is my considered opinion that you are making far too many suppositions here, and acting without examining the facts. This guy is purported to have been born in 1963, which would make him 44 today. That's considerably older than the usual vanity insertion, which is normally someone in their teens or early twenties. I don't claim to know if this person exists or not, but you should be a bit more careful before jumping to conclusions like this. Chromaticity 18:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By originally changing Michael Lewis to Michael Lewis (poet) on the “in this day n history” all you did was change one wrong situation to another wrong situation.

And yes you are right I did mistakenly revert to the previous bad version, rather than removing it altogether, an error I have now corrected. --Drappel 19:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion at Talk:At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA

I think if you look in depth at my removal of the poll, you'll find it was the right call. It (i) was for an issue that hadn't even been discussed on the talk page, and (ii) concerned the insertion of links on YouTube that violated the copyright laws, which no poll could approve anyway. The user who started the poll was a new user and seemed just a little confused on these matters. I invite you to look again at that page. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left the user what I hope is a polite message on xyr talk page discussing this. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why remove galactic conjunction

the grand conjunction is as similar to may 2000 planetary alignment and it would be historical as it would align with the galactic centre. its history —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 12:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Replied

With regard to the predicted Grand conjunction I thought my edit summary was sufficiently clear, this is an event in the future and I assumed it was evident that the December 23 page is a page of historical events.

While the likelihood of the conjunction failing to occur is infinitesimally small and would probably require a cataclysmic event to prevent it, the fact remains that it is a prediction.

You will find it here 2007#Scheduled_events and when it has occurred no doubt you or somebody else will write a Wikipedia article about it showing why it is "notable" but until it has happened it is not history. --Drappel 12:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading diff

Hi Drappel. In this diff ([1]) you give the impression that Sayeret Matkal did all the killing, which the article itself is careful not to do. I appreciate that you need to summarise, but I'm sure you wouldn't want to mislead. Cheers --Dweller 11:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. --Dweller 12:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates and Template:Day

I see from your contributions page that you are heavily involved in specific day articles. I also noticed that you reverted my changes to January 1, etc. in which I replaced some old code with a rewritten version of Template:Day. After leaving a message on the WikiProject Days of the year talk page, I began to update the articles in order to provide some consistency in the 366 pages. Out of the all the articles for specific days, there must be 10 or 15 different introduction methods used, including the old version of Template:Day. I'm assuming that the reverts were just a misunderstanding; if not, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. --MZMcBride 23:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied

In agree that there are inconsistent opening wordings mostly because people have changed them from the version agreed on the Days of the Year talkpage to suit their own preference. However while your change to the template seemed to have worked when inserted in the few days of January that you changed, it apparently broke the few opening paragraphs that had been using the old version. It may have been because they were later in the year, after February 29, or because they interacted with the template in some way incompatible with your change to it. .

I have fixed those later ones by removing the Date template and typing in the spiel. For an example of the breakage go to September 1 and look at the version before my edit.

Just a thought, perhaps your edit summary might have been a little less brief. I can’t comment on the template since I do not understand the writing of them. --Drappel 00:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies with regard to February 29. I thought I had worked out all of the code regarding before and after that date, but I missed the first parentheses (obviously). I've fixed the code and it re-placed Template:day on the page. Everything should be working now. It was a good catch; keep up the great work. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 5th (Permission Day)

I'm not sure I understood your threat. The whole point of adding Permission Day to Wikipedia in the first place was to help educate people on it since there seems to be a lack of knowledge on the subject. Information on it is surprisingly hard to find. As such, I had hoped to link to it from a relevant page. Nonetheless, as before, I must say I'm not sure I understand the threat made in the Summary.The Masked Debater 02:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied

In order to earn its place in Wikipedia an article has not only be true but verifiable, the Permission Day article has no references or links to reliable sources to confirm that it is really a “day” that is celebrated.

Wikipedia:Verifiability says that attribution is required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor.

You might like to look at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Universal_Day_of_the_Jedi as an example of what happens to articles without verifiable sources.

I suggest you find some sources for the article, because without sources it will be deleted. --Drappel 15:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 26

The page does not specifically say it's only for notable world events, it doesn't have any criteria for what to put on there at all, so I assumed it was for all events listed on wikipedia anywhere. Where does it say this isn't the case? -Mike Payne 22:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied

To an extent I agree with you it is difficult to know the guidelines as to what is considered eligible for inclusion. However it is only a few clicks away, the Talk:July 26 page says that July 26 is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year where Wikicalendar Guidelines are to be found.

The guidelines are few and in my opinion too lenient in respect of listing people, but fairly clear as to events “Items listed under "Events" should be notable on a global scale”. And perhaps it is reasonable to note also that as well as being globally notable today they will still need to be notable 10 years from now, which is the most difficult test to self apply.

I see you have reinstated the entry in question, and although I will not remove it at the moment, however I suspect another editor will notice it and do so in the next few days. Perhaps you might like to remove it yourself rather than wait for that to happen. --Drappel 12:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hastings and 11 easy steps

The reason I removed the successions boxes was because I felt they weren't really useful to the article. All the information in them could be found in the infobox on the right side of the article or in the body of the article. I suppose if it gets brought up at GA, when I do it, then I'll put them back. And about the 11 easy steps, I will be putting an explanation for that at the main talk page. It was late at night and I needed to get off so I did not have a chance to do i then. Regards, Psych less 13:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism: Military of Azerbaijan

Hi Drappel, I kinda have this problem and I dont know many people in wikpedia who can help me with it, but since you got experience in this kinda stuff Im asking for your help. Its about the Military of Azerbaijan page, some guys keep on vandalizing the article, Im assuming their Armenian because they add the Armenia tag each time. I didnt notice the changes untill now but they removed the military gallery and Im not able to add it back, Im doing something wrong and I dont know what it is. Could you please add the military gallery back without reverting, because the article already has been updated. Check out this link to see the historic changes, you will clearly see that it really is Armenians who are candalizing the article. I hope you can help, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baku87 (talk • contribs)

Replied

Seconds before I could do it these got readded by another editor, but they are back now, I have added the page to my "watchlist". --Drappel 14:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your neutral assistance?

I wondered if you might be willing to act as a neutral party in a discussion on the topic of a non-notable calendar entry. The discussion of the topic is located here. Interestingly, I came into it as a 3rd party but the 2nd party never joined the discussion so now I'm trying to help the 1st party make a case in favor of his entry. I was going to put more detail here but I don't want to affect your impartiality so I'll let you read the discussion and decide. Thanks for your help. -- Mufka ^(user) ^(talk) ^(contribs) 18:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied

Sure, I am happy to do what I can. I have no particular axe to grind with regard to US matters so I may be able to look at the dispute from a neutral point of view. Not having done such a thing before, do you know if there is a normal protocol; do I just post to the discussion and offer to assist in forming a consensus or is there some set way of doing things? --Drappel 19:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be a formal mediation. Just another set of eyes on the topic. Your opinion as a regular calendar watcher could be valuable. Maybe start by asking yourself what you would do if you saw the entry. If you read through the discussion and decide it's not worth your time, no problem. I would just like to see the discussion come to consensus. -- Mufka ^(user) ^(talk) ^(contribs) 19:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your change, good call...

Hi, I saw you removed the disambig template I put on January 1, but it was in good faith. The military unit is known as "1/1", and 1/1 is redirected to January 1. So I added to the discussion (Talk:January_1#Disambiguation_with_1.2F1.2C_1st_Battalion.2C_1st_Marines) about what exactly is the best route. If you have an idea, let me know. Thanks. Rhetth 18:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied

Since 1/6 redirects to 1st Battalion 6th Marines it seems to me that a redirect from 1/1 to 1st Battalion 1st Marines has that as a precedent. Do you want to change the redirect at 1/1 or would you like me to do it. --Drappel 22:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Response

1/1 seems to share the definition of Jan. 1 and the military unit, whereas 1/6 doesn't really have much significance that I know of beyond the military unit. So would a redirect be better than a disambig or vice versa? Rhetth 12:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment

My feeling is that a simple redirect will be the easiest, while 1/2 1/3 and 1/4 1/5 have managed to generate disambiguation pages because they have more than two possible answers many other 1/? have only redirects. Some month/day or day/month combinations have disambiguation pages and some do not and some go direct to rather unexpected results like 5/5 and some like 10/4 go nowhere (10-4 gets to the expected page). Anybody that feels a 1/1 redirect upsets them can make it a disambiguation page. I am all for being bold but allowing 10 days from your first post for debate on the talk pages allows anybody to have a say. --Drappel 17:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Thanks for the input. Rhetth 20:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NYT edit at July 29

Hi Drappel,

thanks for letting me know. Actually, I got that issue covered. It's just that the 2007 link isn't online for at least a few hours -- all the other edits are fine. I've reverted that particular edit just to avoid any confusion. I appreciate the heads up though. Cheers S ^up? 22:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. I hope you have a great weekend. :) Cheers S ^up? 22:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feb. 1

The event was very controversial in the USA, and a laugh riot around the globe, making it a global event. Hell, it has a Wikipedia page dedicated to it. Regardless of your opinion on the subject, it is notable. You call me "parocial," I call you Anti-American. Moreover "some old woman gets her tits out" is a very POV statement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.205.42 (talk • contribs)

Feb 4 1933

T Harry Williams wrote about the incident in his biography of Huey Long. I don't have a copy of the book but I remember the story well because I thought it was so funny. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.212.89.240 (talk) 21:20, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Being funny does not make it true, and there is nothing about it in the article, fix the article not my talk page. Drappel (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Days of the year guideline

As a frequent contributor (or vandal patroller) to the days of the year articles (WP:DAYS), your comments on the current state of the proposed guideline for that project would be greatly appreciated. Discussion is taking place here. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 02:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was away on a Wikibreak, but thanks for thinking of me. Drappel (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston

i just came across Kingston, Portsmouth and i was wondering what you felt was so valuable about the information there? it all unsourced, of a now defunct area, i can't see how its notable enough for its own article, but i didn't want to but a propose delete until I heard from you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.214.90 (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Been on a Wikibreak for best part of a year, but the whole matter of a merge of Kingston, Portsmouth into Portsmouth was, at the time I last edited that page, the subject of discussion and concensus was to leave it as it stood. Drappel (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

Block is of IP not of member of long standing but little recent activity. Drappel (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Block of 91.108.219.214 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Kuru ^talk 23:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I've applied the ip block exempt filter. Please verify. Kuru ^talk 23:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have worked, many thanks for your attention to this matter. Drappel (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Drappel. You have new messages at Talk:November 14.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

decltype (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Day

Moved 2-October > October 24th is United Nations Day: Thank you. 99.155.152.176 (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know why I have removed your addition of it to events on October 24; because it was already in the observances section. since it is an annual event it will get more publicity there than as the event of the UN declaring the day, who knows perhaps people might start to observe it. -- Drappel (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

frisian rebellion

i thought the frisian rebellion ended with the death of donia in 1520. if it did not end then, when did it end and why. I mean, there is no article on the Frisian Rebellion.

Could you please awnser me. I wanted to search info for a essay at school. I need info i cannot seem to find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.215.31 (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother me but in the edit summary you wrote something that gave me the impression you know more on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.215.31 (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User 94.212.215.31 in posting says: "Pier Gerlofs Donia dies in Sneek, after a long ilness. His successor (Wijerd Jelckama) would be a bad commander and lose many battles, ending the rebellion."

Therefore by the information provided by 94.212.215.31, it was not the death but events after the death which ended the rebellion.

We know that Pier Gerlofs Donia died in 1520.

Donia's lieutenant Wijerd Jelckama took over the command of his armies, which then comprised over 4,000 soldiers. Jelckama also achieved some minor victories, but proved to be a less competent commander and slowly lost men. Jelckama and his soldiers endulged in acts of piracy and sacked many villages in the Frisian lands, losing trust and support of their own people. The fact that Jelckama was less charismatic also cost him: he forged less fruitful alliances and lost more than he made. After a series of defeats, he and the remainder of the Frisian army were captured in 1523. Jelckama and the remaining Frisian and Gelderian rebels were decapitated, putting the rebellion to an end.

And all that I found in Wikipedia, which you could do after searching for Frisian rebellion it is not hard. -- Drappel (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Thatcher and 22 November

I don't agree with your revert of the addition of Mrs Thatcher's resignation to the anniversaries for 22 November. It would be reasonable to object to every stage of the events of November 1990 connected with the change of premiership being covered in the anniversaries, but as I can find none of the other stages included on their anniversaries, this objection seems a little strange. In any case I would submit that the seismic event, and the one which had people in later years claiming that everyone remembered where they were when they heard the news*, was the announcement that Mrs Thatcher was withdrawing from the second ballot - because this was the crucial decision which brought her permiership to an end.

(* I was on the staircase from the ground floor to the first floor of the General Science block of The King's School, Macclesfield) -- Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher did not formally resign as Prime Minister until Major was named Leader of the Conservative Party on 27 November 1990 so her deciding not to continue the party election process was only a step in her ceasing to be Prime Minister. As to YOU bemoaning that no other stages are listed is something YOU can remedy, although there is a likelihood that somebody else will note that even the orderly change of power from one party to another is not normally notable so they may dispute the mid term change of Prime Minister is notable on a global scale. -- Drappel (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woah there Neddy, there's no need for the all-capitals, this is just a routine disagreement about editorial matters and a fairly minor one at that. I'm not bemoaning that no other incidents from this event are memorialised, I'm agreeing with you that only one should be. I'm just saying this should be the one, and from my memory as one living through it and remembering it, is that this was the seismic event. Actually Mrs Thatcher's last day in office was 28 November, a day after John Major won the second ballot, and that was the day she gave the brief speech in Downing Street and was iconically photographed looking back tearfully. My point is that it was because of her decision on the morning of 22 November 1990 that we all knew that was going to happen. It was 22 November that was the turning point. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

I had put the two individuals that you removed from the Births back. Wikipedia:Days_of_the_year#Births_and_Deaths says that only individuals that have an article can be included, and both of these had articles.

Now, I now that it also says that Also, being the subject of a Wikipedia article is only a minimum requirement for inclusion in a Wikicalendar article. Not all people meet the more stringent notability requirements for Wikicalendar articles. I have in fact removed James Davis again- he only became a pro in this year's draft, with no notable achievements to date (according to his article), and on re-consideration, I feel you were right to remove him!

Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year says At a minimum, all events, births, deaths, and holidays should be linked to existing Wikipedia articles and those articles should mention the specific events. This will aid greatly in maintaining the credibility and verifiability of the date articles.

However, I feel that Ali Bastian meets the notability criteria, as an actress in two of the UK's long-running programmes (6 years in Hollyoaks, 2 years so far in The Bill).

I just thought that I'd let you know why I reversed the removal, as a courtesy measure!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we agree on James Davis and while accepting that Hollyoaks and The Bill have been shown in countries outside the UK I do question if Ali Bastian is herself globally notable and outside these two dramas if she is even particularly notable even in the UK, perhaps somebody else will remove her at a later date. -- Drappel (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your 419 comment

...was naughty but made me smile. I did think of ending my comment just above with "I'm sure your Prince is genuine, but if we allowed unverified articles any 419 scammer could write an article saying he was a prince and use it to impress his victims"; then I thought no, AGF, and left it out. You found a more subtle way of making the point. Nice. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a little, I've reverted half a dozen additions of His Majesty to date pages on notability grounds so he seems an old freind. --Drappel (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was creeping back in - I've taken out three more. The IP that keeps putting him in geolocates to New York not Nigeria, but that's where HRH currently resides, so I suppose it figures. JohnCD (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, always helps to avoid a WP:3RR when other people are on his case as well. -- Drappel (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 1

Please see this discussion about a change I made to October 1 which you reverted. Ma^t_chups 01:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at discussion linked above. -- Drappel (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 15, 2004

Thanks! Didn't even realize what I did wrong! Ida Shaw (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Brand Con

Have closer look, I linked to AAS ! Ida Shaw (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes my error in the letters, but at AAS there is no mention of Anime Appreciation Society, which is my point. --Drappel (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 1

How would you know if that is not a religion. That is discriminatory and it should have an apolgy to the church of Sagraves. FYI I didnt have time to put in the referances yesterday.Kiwislayer (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly it was Eric Pastula that I said here was not notable due to not having an article, which remains the case at the time of writing. Therefore when he has an article that clearly shows his global notability over time, fully referenced from reliable sources from a number of countries he might be worthy of note. On the matter of the Chrurch of Sagraves it similarly has no article showing notability. In conclusion use your time to fix the articles not to waste mine on my talk page. --Drappel (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compliment for Achille

G'day Mr[s] Drappel.

Don't know how you got to send me that personal message but do know it's highly appreciated. Gave a reply on my Talk Page. Qwrk (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 27

As Jesus College, Oxford has been in and out of the list, I've opened discussion at Talk:June 27#Jesus College, Oxford. Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 09:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem

The information you demand is in the article Jerusalem. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, added minutes before you sent me this message it was added by an IP with this edit here the same editor who re-added the event with this edit here just minutes before you posted to my talk page, a charge of sock puppet would seem hard for you to refute. Further with this edit you now being logged in totally messed up the formatting of the page--Drappel (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, please calm down. I did not want to edit anything out or to cause confusion. I was just trying to comply with your severe and fierce demands to provide sources. So I provided sources. Sorry for any trouble. It was unintentional. Remember, you are supposed to assume good faith and not to jump into accusations. Notice I have not accused you of Antisemitism or hatred of Jewish people. Das Baz, aka Erudil 14:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salamanca deposed revert

Hi Drappel, you recently reverted (removed) the reference to Salamanca's deposition, indicating (1) "A normal change of power in the country". I disagree -- the deposing of a president by his generals during wartime is a significant event, worthy of note. Your observation (2) "+ linked article no cite" seems reasonable, although by that reasoning shouldn't the information be removed from the linked page? or at least warrant the addition of a "cite needed" tag? Regards, Karl gregory jones (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article for Daniel Salamanca Urey already has a

tag on it, so the entire article is therefore in danger of being removed. Events on the day pages need to be supported by well referenced articles, perhaps Urey would benefit from your attention. --Drappel (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is helpful. (I'm still kind of new.) I don't actually know much about Urey; maybe the next step would be a trip to my local library, find some relevant book(s), and then post references in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl gregory jones (talk • contribs) 21:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will probably find some references on-line I have had a quick look at Google using this as my search President "Daniel Salamanca"-Wikipedia -wiki the two negatives remove some pages that admit they are direct copies of Wikipedia and therefore halve the results, of the remaining there are still a number which are clearly using information from Wikipedia, and such circular references are not any use.

One thing I should have noticed sooner is that being a Spanish name there is a first and a second surname so he is mostly known as Daniel Salamanca.

I found this http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,748143,00.html from Time Magazine as well as this http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0009403/mccray_d.pdf I think from the Florida State library has a number of useful cites (with pages in the books) you can use, it was an interesting read.--Drappel (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

As one of the leading editors at Legend in terms of edit count, you may want to comment at Talk:Legend (disambiguation)#Merger proposal.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Drappel. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Drappel. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Drappel. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Drappel. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert

Hello, I see you reverted my correction to the 2 Tidy font errors on your userpage. May I ask which part of my correction you objected to?

Tidy font is a tracked syntax error in Wikipedia in which links are written in the <font>[link]</font> format. When written this way, they do not correctly display as intended on all browsers, with some browsers displaying as intended, others defaulting back to the standard blue.

Please note that my edit followed the rules of WP:UOWN, which expressly states and allows users to address specific issues on other's userpages, and WP:LINT which expressly states what can and cannot be altered. Both these policies were followed in my correction. Zinnober9 (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Had you made reference to UOWN and LINT in the edit summary or posted a message in my talk page then I may not have reacted to what might be considered a digital trespass. Drappel (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I referenced WP:Lint in my edit summary and stated the type of error I was addressing, feeling that this kept things light and neighborly. My worry with adding WP:UOWN to the edit summary is having both might come across as too heavyhanded for an initial contact edit, and that WP:UOWN is better used in dialog when there is an initial objection. In the past few months with hundreds of edits correcting this specific error, I've only had WP:UOWN discussions with two or three other editors who, like you, didn't initially understand my edit. I appreciate the feedback and hope you are having a great weekend,

Zinnober9 (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]