[edit] DYK for France vs Republic of Ireland (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off)

On November 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article France vs Republic of Ireland (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sabi (Sarbi)

(post moved to article talk page) [1]

Cheers. I'll move this info to the aticle's talk page, and I'll respond there where its more relevant. MickMacNee (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sarbi

(moved to article talk page) [2]

You can edit the page Talk:Sabi (dog) in the same way as my talk page. I'll move this over there aswell and respond. MickMacNee (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

p.s. if you meant how to post to the page, all you need to do is click the edit link at the top of the page, (or section), that you want to add a comment to. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sa"r"bi is the name

(Moved to the article talk) [3] MickMacNee (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Are Congratulations allowed in this case?

Congratulations seem to violate a number of talk page guidelines (neutral point of view, and only discussing the content of an article), yet I don't see anywhere else where I can post Congratulations. So I shall fall back on the good old WP:IAR , which instructs us to Ignore All Rules if they prevent us improving Wikipedia, as well as the instructions to use common sense, and allow occasional exceptions, which are found at the start of the guidelines (and which link to WP:IAR ). Still, I have stuck to the guidelines at least to the extent of using a neutral heading, in place of my originally intended heading, which read:

You deserve enormous congratulations, yet I fear that seems to violate the rules, which rather appals me

Since the France vs Republic Of Ireland article deletion controversy has been settled in favour of Keep, I was expecting to be putting in my congratulations at the end of a long queue of people congratulating you on the heroic and seemingly exhausting battle you have successfully fought to achieve this welcome outcome (to which I made my own tiny contribution on day 8 of the row). I am discouraged first to see there's nobody ahead of me in the queue, and then to realise that my congrats are probably an arguable violation of all sorts of rules, which may well explain why I'm at the head of the queue. In order simply to be able to say Congratulations, as a junior, inexperienced, and already somewhat intimidated editor, I seemingly have to precede my Congrats by an extensive study of the regulations, followed by lots of legalistic argument to justify my ignoring of some of the rules, for fear that I'll find myself deleted, banned, or in other ways harassed by offended opponents of the Keep decision and/or by other guardians of the law at its seemingly most asinine. It seems typical of much of what's wrong with Wikipedia that there are guidelines telling you not to praise, but nothing offered to facilitate praise, no matter how needed. As I mentioned in my contribution on Day 8, Wikipedia is experiencing a massive loss of amateur editors. These are people who freely give of their time and effort, and are subject to all kinds of exhausting aggravation by those who disagree with something they write, yet the rules seem to conspire to prevent them giving and receiving that free yet vital reward, namely praise where praise is due. Is it any wonder so many are leaving?

Anyway, Mick, s-d the rules, and Congratulations. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

lol. Rest assured, we have no rules that say you can't congratulate or thank someone on their talk page for their efforts. So, thanks :) . As for the Afd, the closure was pretty much spot on and per 'the rules', so all's well that end's well, unless or until somebody finds a better mechanism for deciding notability than shotgun Afd's for articles less than a day old. MickMacNee (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And thanks to you too, Mick. But I wasn't joking regarding the rules - I meant every word I said. If you doubt me, try to put yourself in my shoes, read the talk page guidelines, read what I wrote again (particularly where I spell out some of the rules I'm arguably violating), and then ask yourself why nobody else has seen fit to congratulate you. And ask yourself why so many editors are leaving.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! :) Sarah777 (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Kate Nesbitt

On December 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kate Nesbitt, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 21:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to comment