Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

• Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
• To sign your posts (for eg. on talk pages) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
• You can experiment in the Sandbox.
• For help, see Wikipedia:Where to ask a question.
• Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• You can contribute in many ways: write a great article, fight vandalism, upload pictures, perform maintainance tasks, contribute to existing projects...

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

-- utcursch | talk

Contents 1 PROD 2 Thanks! 3 More Spa nonsense 4 Thanks! 5 Adrian Zielonka 6 December 21 2012 7 Vandalism patrol on Egypt 8 BS5 and BML 9 Rail Route Maps 10 Prince Ali guy 11 NLP 12 Benedict Stuart 13 NLP: Trying again 14 Alex, need your help, for Speedy Deletion 15 Treatment 16 Benedict Stuart 17 Consort Shen 18 Retagging speedy deletion 19 D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7 20 William Penn 21 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anchor Gaslamp 22 Talk:Russell Brand Show prank telephone calls row 23 Courtesy notification - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (4th nomination) 24 Proposal discussion moved from AfD discussion so as not to confuse the issues and comments 25 August 1, 2003 26 Latin Profanity 27 Found some possible off-site stalking 28 British Destinations 29 Thru is word, of course 30 Off-topic RD discussion 31 Maria Theresa 32 Reference desk 33 Welsh language

[edit] PROD

Hello. Here you commented that one should not remove the prod tag to contest deletion, but if you read the prod notice, this is actually exactly what you are supposed to do. See also WP:PROD. If you think this article should still be deleted, feel free to list it at AfD. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Understood. In the case in question, the other editor was not providing reasons for removing the tag in the edit summary. However, I see what WP:PROD says about bad-faith removals; so you're right - I should have gone straight to AfD at that point.AlexTiefling 09:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Many thanks for helping fend off the vandals while Gregorian chant was on the main page. I wasn't prepared for the level of vandalism. It's heartening to know how efficient and diligent you WP admins and editors are to revert it! Peirigill 07:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Spa nonsense

I caught that "contributor" at work on The Spa. I've left a note on his talk page about the propriety of doing that. 68.39.174.238 03:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

No, you got her ancestory correct. I count it by the way it use to be when Dukes were usually the sons of Kings or had royal ancestory in my study of geneaology. I keep forgetting about the British Law where non-royals were often given Duke titles. No problem. RosePlantagenet

[edit] Adrian Zielonka

Hi, you nominated this page for speedy deletion. I have speedily deleted it, but please take the time to inform the original creator of the page in future. Thanks, Proto::type 12:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] December 21 2012

Hi Alex, I wanted to let you know that I replied to you post on Talk:December 21 2012: You are right, it is not nonsense, an editor shouldn't have labeled it that way. However, since the information already appears in Maya calendar, this article was changed to a redirect page (the information should appear in one place). Thanks for your contributions! Regards, Accurizer 16:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism patrol on Egypt

I noticed you reverted some vandalism on the Egypt article. Please take a look at the article history [1] and notice that 165.138.95.74 made two consecutive vandalism edits in a row, before you "undid" one of them. This means the other vandalism edit stayed. It's always prudent to check the edit history for this, to make sure you have reverted far enough back. It's also possible for back-to-back vandalism to come from different IPs or editors. So, if I'm reverting back to another IP, I make sure their edits weren't vandalism too. Anyway, thanks for keeping an eye out for vandalism. --Aude (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BS5 and BML

Well, i saw the convesion the BS5. However, i think the writing has now slightly degraded. I have left the same note on the WP:TRAIL talk page. Simply south 12:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you meant by text or labels. Anyway, i have put down an example of the problem. Simply south 12:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rail Route Maps

Excellent work on your recent route map. I would like to share with you current work on the Scottish lines (through WP:TIS) which may be of interest to you. During the current review of the route diagrams, they are being moved from the main article to templates. By splitting the route diagram from the main article, this makes editting both far easier. Have a look at Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway with the associated template Template:Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway as an example. --Stewart 15:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prince Ali guy

Okay then, I didn't know that. Go ahead and CSD Stijndon (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NLP

That was rather disappointing. People mentioned other ways of achieving much the same thing, but I don't see how. The whole system at Wikipedia seems biased against those with academic credentials who could make a judgment based on expert knowledge, but who generally don't have the time, and those with a financial interest in promoting the subject and biasing it to their point of view. If you have any suggestions, let me know. Peter Damian (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read and understand WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:POINT. You might also try reading well-written Wikipedia articles on other pseudoscience subjects such as homeopathy, as well as pseudohistory and other such topics. Rather than relying on the private knowledge of individual experts, find published sources which give voice to the criticisms you feel should be included. Make measured, balanced edits, showing your sources in their proper context, and relating their content to the descriptive content of the articles. Remember that falsity does not make a topic not notable. UFOs, ghosts, saints' faces in slices of bread, live toads found in rock, and many other things are (probably) not real, but they're still potentially notable. Come to that, what about fiction? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

My point, again, is that discussion of fiction is fine, but presenting it as fact is not. Yes, I have read the policy pages you mention very carefully. Remember I have been editing here since 2003. I have been studying the progess of the NLP articles for nearly as long, and in particular the fate of those who tried to challenge the promotionalism. Can I again recommend this. You clearly hadn't looked at it, judging by your comments. It is simply a record, supporting by diffs, of one editors attempt to challenge what was going on. The bit about Bertrand Russell is particularly good. Peter Damian (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The point is, the editor in question did exactly the things you suggest above. But he got beaten up. Peter Damian (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll read your source in more detail when I have time. I suspect that (a) I will broadly agree with the editor in question in principle, (b) I will have some difficulties with his methods, (c) no-one was actually beaten up, and (d) it will prove to be more trouble than it's worth. But I like having my assumptions overturned, so I'll check it out in full in due course. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

On (c) he was banned (i.e. indef blocked). On his methods, he tended to talk sense a lot, and far too much, and people did not understand him (he was dealing with a real set of cranks, but they were polite cranks). On (d), it depends how much you think it's worth. My main subject is the history of the scientific method (I translate a lot of medieval treatises on science, as they saw it) and I have an abiding interest in a similar process going on in Wikipedia: will faith or reason win the day? Best. Peter Damian (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On methods, here is a typical edit by him. Comes across as arrogant (though I thought very funny) and that was eventually his downfall. Peter Damian (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Benedict Stuart

I appreciate your comments under this issue. Normally I'm used to a bit of debate on wikipedia - I don't mind a good argument about sources etc! - but on this occasion it's gone a bit too far. I've posted an official report on the Administrator's norice board. Thanks again. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Your efforts have already borne fruit: I see he's been given a 31-hour block. As someone who's interested both in European royalty and in LGBT history (especially the 'B' bit), I found your well-researched additions to the article very useful. I can't be having with the idea that any uncovering of queer history is automatically revisionism. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NLP: Trying again

Articles for deletion: NLP Modeling

[edit] Alex, need your help, for Speedy Deletion

• Alex, need your help. This guy is so not notable Justin Roper If you removed the recent QB from your list Brett Salisbury you MUST remove this guy. Please help me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.224.206.56 (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also how does this guy a notable University of Oregon Quarterback? Brady Leaf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.224.206.56 (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they left me a message asking me to "examine most of the Quarterbacks in college football." I did a procedural nomination for Danny O'Neil upon their request, but that was obviously a speedy keep. Somebody still has their knickers in a twist about Salisbury. At least they're not complaining about your notability anymore. :) Movingboxes (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Treatment

Hi,

I saw your revert of treatment. Based on this section of the disambiguation manual of style and this section of disambiguation, as well as WP:NOT#DICT, I believe the page is better off as a straight redirect to therapy. We could post a message at WP:WPDAB or some of the other boards if you'd like, DAB pages are notoriously twitchy and ambiguous. Which is ironic, since they're all about, well, disambiguity. Anyhoo, I'd rather have a page that's useful and in line with the disambiguation manual of style and I don't think the current one is. WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules^(simplified) 13:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The examples given by other disambiguation pages (or any pages on wikipedia bar perhaps featured articles) are never valid given wiki's open editing; the only real touchstone we ever have is the policies and guidelines. I've brought it up here, hopefully there'll be some suggestions that allow for sensible disambiguation as well as keeping in line with the MOS. WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules^(simplified) 17:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Benedict Stuart

I think you may be right. Removing categories from the Benedict Stuart article was something that Skeptik repeatedly did (with no justification or reasoning!) Skeptik was meant to be banned from editing for 3 weeks for using insulting language (and frankly the language used against me was particularly nasty), so it would be sad to see that the ban was being flouted. Although I don't know how these things work and whether anything can be done? You may have a better idea. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consort Shen

It was a joke page by Nlu. Eventually he gave permission to delete via CSD A3. See WP:CSD for more info. Therefore I'm gonna remove the speedy contest. Thanks--Yaldati Sheli (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the page cannot be blanked 'in one go', becuase it is reverted by default by Clue Bot. The only way to apply for Spped under {db-a3} in this case, was to remove content megabytes at a time. If you are unsure of whether this is vandalsim, please feel free to contact NIu, but otherwise, please do not contest this speedy deletion. for any further questions just contact me on my talk page. --Yaldati Sheli (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've now made contact with Nlu, who has confirmed that they have nothing to do with you, and agree that you're a vandal. Please stand by while I report your activities. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have a major objection to it, I'll block Yaldati Sheli as a vandalism-only account. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Go for it - thank you! AlexTiefling (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Retagging speedy deletion

When another editor, other than an article's creator/ major contributor removes a CSD tag from an article, you may not retag it. Please read the history of the article for explanation of the removal and alternatives to consider. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 19:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, my mistake - I thought the author had removed it, and I didn't check. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William Penn

Hello,

I thought you'd like to know that your last edit summary led to me putting in a "helpme" request to ask how to request semi-protection, as a result Admin Hersfold has semi'ed the article for three days (as you've probably seen if it's watchlisted. The request can be seen at my talkpage (along with the response from Hersfold) NullofWest (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC).

Thank you! AlexTiefling (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anchor Gaslamp

Yo Alex, would you mind taking another look at the Anchor Gaslamp article? The Article Rescue Squadron has been working on the article in an attempt to bring it up to scratch, and hopefully the issues with NPOV are resolved. Thanks! the skomorokh 17:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having a second look, I appreciate it. Mahalo, the skomorokh 19:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Russell Brand Show prank telephone calls row

Please forgive the intrusion Alex. Fearing you were merely some kind of malicious wikipedant, I decided to check your user page and was immediately disarmed by your colourful and amusing array of user descriptors. I wish I had stopped by earlier. Alas no box for lovers of burlesque dance (yet), haha. Having now just watched ZigZag's "Russell and Ross: What The F*** Was All That About?" on Chanel 5 (a seemingly worthy documentary which may even deserve a mention in the article) I now realise that rarely in the media is ever anything really as it first seems. I found the role of Max Clifford in this whole affair as fascinatung as it was repulsive. But I had not realised, despite (or perhaps because of) all the media coverage to date, what a charming and essentially gracious young lady Georgina Baillie really is, quite regardless of what she chooses to do from time to time on stage. And I would not want the discussion of her professional activites to take the article talk page any futher towards the general morass of subjectuve "chat-blog" that I seem to have recently plunged it into. So perhaps I'll take a rest on that page for now. Good luck to you Georgina, I say - I hope you get as much publicity as you want, or need, from this whole sorry affair. And good luck to you Alex, I say - I hope you can find a fair and factual path for this article, across the painfully convoluted minefield that is British media in the 21st century. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Martin - no worries. Thank you for your gracious words. I'd noticed the grubby hand of Max Clifford too. I've not seen the documentary, but I'm going to look out for reviews of it tomorrow. Let's hope we can continue to make the article sensible and balanced. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy notification - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (4th nomination)

An article that you have had an interest, List of bow tie wearers, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (4th nomination). Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal discussion moved from AfD discussion so as not to confuse the issues and comments

I have moved the Proposal discussion from the AfD page to the "talk page for that AfD. No slight is intended... only a wish to keep the issues seperated. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] August 1, 2003

We sometimes disagree in AfD, but even when I don't agree with you, I respect your reasoning. That said, I was stunned to see the discussion on this closed as "no consensus, default to keep", since very few people suggested an outright keep, and most would have been satisfied with a merge. I honestly don't think the closing administrator paid attention to any of the comments. Regardless of how you felt on this issue-- delete, merge, keep -- I think that everyone's comments showed that a lot of people care about this issue, and "no consensus" was similar to a snub. I've asked for a review, and invite everyone to give their two cents worth at [2]. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latin Profanity

Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns related to this article and your assurance to find more sourcing for it. I appreciate it. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Found some possible off-site stalking

While I would have loved to resolve this using email instead, you don't seem to have it enabled. I've found something that I'm concerned is meant to harass you off-site, and I'd like you to take a look at it. I don't want to post the link here, so please email me at lifebaka@gmail.com when you are able so I can give it to you in private. Cheers, man. lifebaka++ 01:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British Destinations

You deleted my link to http://www.britishdestinations.wikispaces.com, saying that it was spam and not a travel guide. True, it isn't a travel guide but I had specified that it was to provide destination information to tourists and will thus assist in the planning process for many tourists. It also includes various itineraries that may be useful. I'm just requesting if you could undo your deletion of my link at the London article. 203.171.199.21 (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thru is word, of course

just in the spelling which the majority of english speaking people use, while your replacement is only used by a minoriry. --L.Willms (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Off-topic RD discussion

I have removed a discussion thread for being off-topic and mildly attack-ish. While I don't necessarily disagree with your original comment, it might be helpful if you could supply a source for "regarded as highly offensive and demeaning" to forestall further off-topic discussion. Thanks. – 74  18:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Maria Theresa

Hi Alex. Thanks for the invitation, but to tell the truth i don't want to spend a lot of time with it. She was only the Queen of Hungary, because Croatia was a part of Hungary at this time, but some nationalist men simply can't bear it and try to change which has happened earlier. They simply delete my sources all the time, and readd the false information. I am getting very tired of them. I have no problem with Croatians at all, i have problem only with vandals. I didn't want to make a war, but they can't stop. And the worst is that they claim me as a vandal, although they are the vandals. I will write my opinion on the discussion page, but will not go into further spat, because it has no sense. I think these pages should be protected of the vandals, but your idea is nice (i mean to speak about it in the discussion page), so thanks for the invitation again, hopefully this will be enough to solve the problem. Toroko (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right and of course i understand that you are suprised of this matter. The reason of this dispute is not about Maria Theresa, it is about the contact between Hungary and Croatia. In the truth Hungary conquered Croatia in 1091 and it became the part of Hungary. It had autonomy, but it was the part of Hungary. According to some other users, Croatia entered a personal union with Hungary. It is simply not true. I know, maybe it seems that i am very conceited and i think that i always know everything better than anyone, so i am sorry for that, but what i say is the truth. There is no question about it. I gave a lot of sources. If you have a good history book, you can read about it as well. But some users claim that there were two separate kingdoms, so there was a separate King (or Queen) of Croatia. This is not true. In the full title there is "King (or Queen) of Croatia" as well, but it is just a title, this doesn't mean that Maria Theresa was truly Queen of Croatia. There were a lot of titles (i didn't count it, but at MT there is about 20 or 30 or more), but truly she was the Queen of Hungary, not Queen of Hungary, Coratia and Slavonia. Maybe it is strange, but people should make a difference between real ruling titles and honorary titles. But the main dispute is about the conquer/personal union. So it is not about Maria Theresa. I can't say a lot of things about her, probably it is the same with those, who delete my version. Toroko (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reference desk

Hello, Alex. I noticed your input at the desks, and took the liberty of adding your signature to this list. I hope that's alright. (Otherwise revert, of course). Looking forward to further contributions! ---Sluzzelin talk 16:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Welsh language

[3] was and is a genuine question - have any other states taken such pains to revive a near dead minority language at great expense when nearly all the population (including immigrants) understand the current majority language? Gaelic in Scotland comes to mind, though it was always used on the islands and I don't think it's required for all government publications? Pbhj (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)