User talk:LibStar/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about User:LibStar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

CTU

Hi there, just a quick reminder of your July 2009 merge proposal. Schwede 66 15:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Mel Krajden

Dear LibStar you expressed an interest in Mel Krajden. The article has been restored (kindly by the deleting administrator User:Cirt) although it is up again for deletion (Mel Krajden (2nd nomination)). This is just a note to let you know in case you wish to help improve the article further or contibute in some other way. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC))

SameerJaved?

Hi!

Any thoughts on whether Shalalal (talk · contribs) could be another sock of SameerJaved (talk · contribs)? They seem to have made almost identical additions to the same articles (cf. this with this). Gabbe (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

NB

May I draw your attention to these responsa of mine. ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 20:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

And also to this request for guidance on the topic which I have started. ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 20:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, don't want to bother you much, but I requested a move for the article, you've participated in discussion for AFD and raised pretty reasonable arguments. Userpd (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, LibStar. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 23.
Message added 09:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers ‎ Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers ‎

Please take a look at Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers and consider the possibility of withdrawing the deletion nomination. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC) ‎

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamran Talatoff

I have put a little note on this afd which might need some action. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC))

Danish bilateral articles

I will rewrite the text, it will just take some time. Ahmetyal 15:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I got a message on my talk page from an IP asking that I look into a specific edit, which turned out to be a content removal you undertook.[1] I see you suspected it was a sock. I have no idea why the IP contacted me and I am unaware of any background to this situation. However, I see that the content that was removed appears reasonably sourced. If the only thing impeding its inclusion is the fact that it was added by a suspected sock, I would kindly request that I be allowed to re-add the information. If there is something inherently wrong with the content please let me know. Best, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Beautiful Small Machines

Since the main article for the template was deleted, this template qualifies for G8 (page dependent on nonexistant page). I tagged it as such. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

ok thanks. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Seal of Oslo

You probably just missed it, but there was already and article with Seal of Oslo when you created City seal of Oslo. Both seem to have been copied verbatim from the Oslo article, so I redirected the newest to the oldest. If you feel I missed something in the newer article, please feel free to add it. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"Foreign relations"

You know that calling bilateral relations "foreign relations" makes absolutely no sense, right? How are they foreign? Foreign to what?--TM 01:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

the article foreign relations is not very good. but every country has a foreign affairs department that deals with interactions with other countries. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

They are bilateral relations, not foreign relations. There is a big difference. Foreign relations includes everything all contact between governments, including at the UN and other multilateral organizations. Bilateral implies direct contact between the people and governments. It is simply incorrect to write that Chile-Spain relations are "foreign relations". Please stop writing it in the intro to bilateral relations articles.--TM 01:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

can you WP:CHILL? gee there are numerous bilateral articles which state foreign relations. perhaps you can find them all and edit. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

When you knowingly and repeatedly edit incorrectly, it is annoying.--TM 02:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

hardly, how many times have I done it? at least I'm making an effort to create notable bilateral articles. your negative attitude is unwelcome. LibStar (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Length of day at the solstice in Helsinki

Regarding this edit, would this suffice as a source? I don't believe astronomical calculations are controversial. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

looks fine. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Skopje

Hello. I left a message on Talk:Skopje that is connected with the article Skopje and related to your edits. Will you please be so kind to read my comment and write your opinion?--Antidiskriminator 14:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie-Laure Sauty de Chalon

Could you please review the discussion and the article? I think I've improved it enough to pass WP:HEY. Would you agree? Bearian (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

this is bordering on WP:CANVASSing. as an admin you should be careful of such behavior. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

For information only

Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Esfericum. Regards, 86.159.91.236 (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC) P.S. This is for your information only.

Chicken rabbit

Hey LibStar, I got only 66,000 results once you put "chicken rabbit" in quotes. But I got over 4,000 hits in Google Books--I know, for a fact, that it's a notable topic. Whaddayasay, we work on it to get it going and up to FA status? Drmies (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

ha totally! When you put any 2 random words into google you'll usually get at least 10,000 results sometimes over 1 million. This means 1000s and 1000s of sources. Maybe we should try "chicken phone" or "chicken diamond". LibStar (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No no no--(WARNING: explicit image!) it must be chicken rabbit! And no way am I linking that to my Facebook account: students are watching. Drmies (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Unchain the Wolves

Thanks for bringing it to my attention-- taken care of now. Mandsford 02:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

hardly an issue when you use your first initial and surname in your username

Please note that you have breached WP:OUTING and I hereby give you the first warning notice. I have requested Oversight to permanently remove the offending edits by you. --Pkravchenko (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

as in the conflict of interest report about you Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_47#Ukrainian_Artists_Society_of_Australia.E2.80.8E, you have effectively outed yourself by using your surname in your username and admitted to being the president of the Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia who is a certain mr pkrachenkvo. Given that Peter has passed away and that you happily edit with your surname are you surprised that people may guess your identity? LibStar (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

given pkrachenko's mysterious attempt to hide his real name in his user name and editing an article that P.Kravchenko has a strong connection, this cannot be harassment, this is like say user krudd complaining that he is found out by sheer luck he is actually kevin rudd! Hint if you don't want to be discovered don't use your first initial and surname in your username. LibStar (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Rosie Malek-Yonan

Hi there, LibStar! You've tagged the Rosie Malek-Yonan article with:

I've been reading through similar articles on actors even those that have been designated as "featured articles" such as Uma Thurman's. I've also looked at other articles on actors including Julia Duffy, Ann Hathaway, Gena Rowlands, and even authors, and have found that their works are listed the same as Malek-Yonan's. I don't know how else an actor, author, writer would list their work so as to not look like a resume. Will you please be more specific as to which part of the Malek-Yonan article you are referring to as "Like resume". I am trying to improve the article and have been adding all the references I can find and will continue to add more. Any input to help improve the article would very much be appreciated. Zayya 21:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've addressed some issues on the talk page. LibStar (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia

You're getting very close to breaching the three-revert rule here. Take your concerns to the talkpage. -- Lear's Fool 02:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Tim Gossage

Hi there, I was very impressed to see you withdraw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Gossage, but just thought I'd let you know that, when closing an AfD, you should remove the AfD template from the article and add Template:Old AfD multi to the talk page. You seem pretty active in AfDs, so you probably already know all this and it had just slipped your mind or something, but I thought I'd say it just in case. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Google News

I notice you are commenting on a lot of AfDs making votes based solely on Google News results (here, here, here, here, and here, for starters). Please carefully review Wikipedia's notability guidelines (rather than just waving to them) and WP:GOOGLETEST. I appreciate your enthusiasm to participate in the AfD process, but it's important to understand that notability is not and has never been determined solely on the basis of Google News (or any news aggregator) hits. There are many topics that are notable but not things that commonly appear in popular news, and their notability must be gauged by other means.

For one quick example, Neurolinguistics turns up only three gnews results (all of which are in fact incorrect usages; those articles are actually about the unrelated pseudoscience of neuro-linguistic programming), but its notability is not even questionable; it is a topic that forms a chapter of most introductory linguistics textbooks, many research universities offer degrees in it, and there entire academic journals devoted to it [2][3]. For a totally different example, Ai Jing only returns one hit, but a quick glance at Ai Jing#References shows that there is actually lots of significant in reliable sources that are not caught in gnews searches.

Those are just a few examples. Please try to familiarize yourself with the guidelines on both what constitutes notability, and how google results should be used responsibly in gauging notability. Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I am an experienced editor and stand by my nominations. Gnews is still one of the more reliable ways to find third party coverage. I often search alternate terms. Some topics gscholar may be more appropriate. If people find reliable third party sources then I welcome that. Too often people put up a poor WP:GOOGLEHITS argument in AfDs. For those AfDs you mention, go ahead and find sources instead of telling me my search was inadequate. LibStar (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that if you insist on using GNews as sole source, you should be better informed about what countries are covered by GNews and when. Dismissing articles because GNews doesn't cover that region, and then insisting that they do seems very puny. --Peter Hansson (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sea Scouts

All my references have links that you can access, as they are archival references they may take some time to download, but they are there. Dan arndt (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Municipality of Ashfield

Hello, LibStar. You have new messages at Talk:Municipality of Ashfield#Nick Adams.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LordVetinari (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Miss Asia Pacific World 2011

Can you check this article, Miss Asia Pacific World 2011 if it meets the criteria for deletion? The pageant is a newly established pageant which was supposed to be held this May/June but moved to October. This pageant is using an old pageant Miss Asia Pacific International to gain fame which was clarified by the organizers of Miss Asia Pacific International that they are not related clarification here--Arielle Leira (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: International Random Film Festival

Hello LibStar. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of International Random Film Festival, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not nonsense - there is meaningful content. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Beyond Elysian Fields

I'm not sure if you're aware that per WP:PROD an article that has been discussed at AfD cannot be prodded, as you did with Beyond Elysian Fields. In the spirit of WP:IAR I'll leave the prod there anyways and let an admin decide whether it's within policy, since there was really no actual discussion in that AfD. Truth be told I don't know why Ron no consensus/NPASR closed it instead of deleting it as an uncontested nomination as I've seen other admins do, but I guess that's his WP:NOQUORUM prerogative (I hadn't read that policy until now). Cheers! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

BlueThird

Hi Libstar, While the situation isn't at all your fault, it might be best to not interact with BlueThird (talk · contribs) on their talk page unless you really need to. Please let me (or another admin) know if the personal attacks resume when the block expires. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

no problem, yes I agree it is just feeding the WP:BATTLE mentality of some. LibStar (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sign AfD

I guess you forgot to put a sign while you commented on an AfD » nafSadh did say 08:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Kind of Stone Age afd

hi, I've replied on the Wrong Kind of Stone Age afd page - not sure if I'm meant to reply there or on the page's Talk page. I can try work on the article more, but I won't be in sydney to check books until at least mid june. Kathodonnell (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Overseas Christian Fellowship

It looks as if Overseas Christian Fellowship didn't get deleted at the same time as Overseas Christian Fellowship Australia. I agree with you that the article should be deleted, but it looks as if it will need a new AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks, I'll set up a new AfD. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)