User talk:Qwerty Binary/archive11

Hi there. I see you edited this page to remove the M.D., but if you take a look at this link you can see that he is indeed a registered M.D. due to his studies at the University of Sydney, and not just an MBBS: http://www.nysed.gov/coms/op001/opsc2a?profcd=60&plicno=114137&namechk=DIA

I'm not sure how to best edit the page to reflect this, so I would be grateful if you could change/revert whatever seems appropriate. Thanks. AKD157 (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Also, I noticed you added a notability tag. The article was once nominated for deletion on this basis, but there was no consensus. Considering that the article survived that process, I'm not sure why it should be saddled with a notability tag afterward. Here are a few notable references to one aspect of his work: 1. The music critic Schonberg in the NY Times "Keep away from the musical note "C," warns kinesiologist Dr. John Diamond in a new book. He says that anybody exercising to music ..." NY Times 2. Chicago Tribune Chicago Tribun 3. LA Times 4. Marie-Claire 5 And a fascinating article in Sterophile. Anyway, that's just my two cents. AKD157 (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please duly refer to and familiarise yourself with the Manual of Style (Biographies) with regards to titles and post-nominal letters. Be that as it may that John Diamond is a medical graduate of the University of Sydney and that he may be a doctor registered with the Medical Board of New South Wales or wherever, it is not appropriate per that document of Wikipedia policy to include the M.D.

If it is of utmost importance to include the fact that Diamond is not a mere M.B.B.S. but an M.D., I would think to include that in the body of the biography on this individual.

With regards to your editing to that article, I would advise that you appear to have quite an interest in the person and that may warrant treading carefully, so as to, amongst other things, avoid breaches of policy with respect to neutrality, conflicts of interest, single-purpose editing, and the like.

As for tagging article for notability assessment, I was checking if there were in fact any changes in perception of the subject's notability since then, and that the article isn't mere puffery, stacked with references and links that have been furnished via a process of trawling, if you will.

Thank you for your concerns and cheers. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your advice and info. I have one further question that I'm hoping you can shed light on:

I have been reading through Wikipedia's documents regarding notability, but I am not clear what amount/kind of references would suffice to establish notability for this article. In addition to the links above, which refer to major newspapers and periodicals, a significant amount of matter from respected publishers can be found through a Google Books search, eg:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ifquDz9Po6cC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA71#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Z6HZTBVxJ-0C&q=john+diamond#v=snippet&q=john%20diamond&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=79ZWoymp2VsC&q=john+diamond#v=snippet&q=john%20diamond&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=G555GaAf_78C&q=%22john+diamond%22#v=snippet&q=%22john%20diamond%22&f=false

If you do not consider that these references, plus what is in the article, suffice to establish notability, can you please help to clarify what would for an article of this sort?

Thanks for your help. Regards, AKD157 (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC).Reply

  Thanks for uploading File:Bright Eyes - Drunk Kid Catholic.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dear Qwerty, could you please respond to my question that is now in your 2013 archive? Regards, AKD157 (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Simply, one can list a handful of examples of how one might qualify as being adequately notable but such a listing would be by no means comprehensive.

In the case of John Diamond and his work, he and it are, as they always were, of broad enough recognition from within the field of interest and beyond. The work of Diamond is not considered to be considered by except by a questionable devoted following as well as academics of little authority or even credibility.

Now, as to what can be done, if the work of Diamond could be established (it's not really as though the article links to anything or discuss anything more than a biography that you could find on a book cover or something) and his name and work peppered and cited many a times in several reputable works, ideally academic ones, then that'd more likely than not qualify. As it is, it's not really as though the article will be deleted; there's much to be said for inertia and retention of the status quo, at least for the article itself, regardless of whether that's due to apathy or activity. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Pardon my asking but what is your relationship with the person or topic of interest? As it seems, you're quite invested in this page and there may be a possible conflict of interest or undue, excessive page ownership. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you again for your help in this matter. I will take what I believe to be your advice - taking into consideration the limitations of the extant references - and just let the article be. As far as my role is concerned, I am indeed very interested in the work of Dr. Diamond, but I am not connected with him apart from that. Regards, AKD157 (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sydney Law School may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to It Must Be Love (Labi Siffre song) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dates (TV series) may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to H. V. Evatt may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Labor Party]] and [[List of Australian Leaders of the Opposition|Leader of the Opposition]]) from 1951 to 1960, the third [[President of the United Nations General Assembly]] from 1948 to
• au/the-royal-prerogative-pdf/productdetail/102405 The Royal Prerogative - Thomson Reuters Australia]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have granted file mover rights to your account following either a request for those rights or a clear need for the ability to move files. For information on the file mover rights and under what circumstances it is okay to move files, see Wikipedia:File mover. If you do not want file mover rights anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. INeverCry 18:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

--Qwerty Binary (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. They used to have a requests section on the page, but now they want you to go through the OTRS request system (I suppose that's for the better, since they can keep more of the information that needs to be kept confidential private that way, but it's more opaque from the outside). In the past I would have just gone and done it myself but late last year I got talked to about that, so I stopped. This way at least they can make sure the checkuser gets done. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Herbert Angas Parsons may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• bridegroom); Ada & Edith Bonython (sisters of the bride); Winifred Bonython (cousin of the bride)]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Real date of released is uknown but propably this is 2002. Maybe you have confirm? Please answer me on my discussion page. Eurohunter (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Very similar Matnakash.Matnakash is pita? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samizambak (talk • contribs) July 8, 2013‎ --Qwerty Binary (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Westfield Sydney may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *[Bottega Veneta]]: Australia's first Bottega Veneta store; located on level 3

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Speedy criteria are applied narrowly as specified by WP:CSD. A7 does not apply to products. "empty" does not apply if there is any meaningful content. "X is a school in the town of Y". is content, and can be the basis for an article DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, dear. My apologies. Even applied narrowly, I guess I've been reading it too broadly.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

there are some other problems also with the nominations; I suggest you re-read WP:Deletion policy before making further deletion listings. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Will do. Thanks. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

The article Make one whole has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:DICDEF. Not convinced it can expand beyond that.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ansh666 03:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

The article Multifarious has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:DICDEF; not convinced it can be expanded.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ansh666 03:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ansh666 18:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:Zubair Khan.jpg. Since you had some involvement with the File:Zubair Khan.jpg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Codon degeneracy, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://dnacodes.blogspot.com/2008/08/degeneracy-of-genetic-code.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Convocation House may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ceremonies, for which it, like the Divinity School and Chancellor's Court, is licensed,<ref>{[cite web|url=http://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/bodley/about-us/venue-hire/weddings-and-civil-
• partnerships|title=Weddings & civil partnerships|publisher=Bodleian Library, University of Oxford}}</ref>, renewal of vows, wedding blessings, wedding receptions, and conferences.<ref name="Conf Ox">

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to University of New South Wales may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• url=http://hass.unsw.adfa.edu.au/staff/profiles/heseltine.html|accessdate=24 September 2012}}</ref>]|| 1991{{spaced ndash}}1996
• url=http://hass.unsw.adfa.edu.au/staff/profiles/heseltine.html|accessdate=24 September 2012}}</ref>]|| 1988{{spaced ndash}}1990

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! In the interest of covering all bases, you might want to include information from UNSW's official statement in the article. Regards, --Forward Unto Dawn 12:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

This image is redundant to the film poster. Also, reader is able to understand the soundtrack section without this image, like the tracklist. Any objections to removing this image from Good Will Hunting? --George Ho (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi.

I don't feel strongly one way or another, but I think I simply added that as other articles for films have. Perhaps it could be moved to its own page if warranted? I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on this matter and reach the most agreeable resolution to everyone.

Cheers, QB. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Stand-alone article for this film soundtrack won't work. Its notability must be independent from the film's, but that would be impossible to find/prove. Also, I don't think we need a consensus. Even with some exception, perhaps Saturday Night Fever (soundtrack) or Tron (soundtrack) can teach you how to write a notable soundtrack. Or even a "notable" soundtrack won't guarantee an article per WP:Notability; look at The Big Chill (film). --George Ho (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your reply.

Having noted the above, fair do's. Would you like to remove the content now or shall I? --Qwerty Binary (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Won't matter; I'll tag this image with {{db-g7}} if you don't mind. --George Ho (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Very well. I do not mind at all.

Thanks. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

In general, and particularly in principle, I agree. BUT ... (You could see that coming, couldn't you!) ... if you have a look at Category:Rhodes scholars, you'll notice that ALL the sub-categories are "xxx Rhodes scholars".

Thus, if you're going to propose "Rhodes Scholars" (Well, you already have, haven't you.)

Thus, in proposing "Rhodes Scholars", logic suggests you ALSO need to propose a similar change for ALL of the sub-categories. Doesn't it? (i.e. seeking your opinion/comments/etc.)

If you agree with me, I'm happy to assist you. But personally, (to use a crude metaphor), I suspect that such a proposal would be "pushing **** up hill". Don't get me wrong - I support the proposal - but I expect it has zero chance of success. If you can present an argument that convinces me otherwise, (but more importantly, convinces the average wiki-pedant otherwise), I will be a) amazed, b) VERY impressed, c) VERY happy to support you. Sadly, until then, I suspect this is a lost cause.

I hope I'm wrong. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Pdfpdf,

Thank you for your comment and your support in this matter.

Although I believe I did suggest that all subcategories must also be renamed in a similar, I shall promptly modify my proposal and rationale to expressly reflect this. Thank you for bringing this to light.

Soon, I will be more readily able to present a statement that clearly and convincingly establishes that "Scholar" prevails over "scholar".

If you wouldn't mind, would you like to help in polishing my rationale as to why this should be "Scholar" as opposed to "scholar"? At this juncture, my reason is simple: documents from the University and associated organisations refer to recipients of the Scholarship as "Rhodes Scholars", and not as "Rhodes scholars", for the very reason that I highlighted; that is, it is a title and a proper noun.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

QB --Qwerty Binary (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh dear. I fear there are going to be "tears before bedtime". I fear that you are going to try to apply logic and common sense to this problem. Sadly, (from my POV, very sadly), I fear that you are going to discover that logic and common sense have very little to do with the process. This all sounds terribly negative. Again, sorry. I guess I've just had too much experience dealing with wiki-pedants. Were logic to be the only criterion, (even the primary criterion), the solution would seem obvious. However my experience is depressing.

(For example, I delude myself that a "normal person" would refer to a Prime Minister, a Major General, a Rear Admiral, and a Field Marshal. However, I have been admonished by "experts" quoting things like WP:MILTERMS. Hence, despite the "rear-guard actions" I have mounted, these pages are named rear admiral, prime minister, major general and field marshal. I'm afraid my success-rate is zero.)

I repeat, I'm supportive and happy to help. But sadly, I feel you need to acquaint yourself with the history and politics before you start "tilting at windmills". I'd love to be more positive and not feel guilty about misleading you, but my experience is that ... I would be misleading you.

Never-the-less, if you DO discover a "silver-bullet", please "rattle-my-cage". I'm happy to help. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Thanks for your reply and sharing your extensive experience with these sorts of things. However, my philosophy with regard to this is "qué será será"; I think that whatever will happens will happen, and I am not going to be too worried how this turns, much less lose sleep if this proposal is shot down! :)

If this is indeed opposed and rejected, I won't worry about this apparent inappropriately capitalised category and simply not raise something like this in the future as long as things are as you say they are.

Cheers,

QB --Qwerty Binary (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh dear. Your response sounds like I've oversold the negative side. Not my intention - just trying to prepare you for the illogicality of the situation. Yes, "qué será será" is a good attitude for this sort of situation - perhaps the required attitude? Who knows? Maybe logic will prevail? Pdfpdf (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why, of course.

Following the closure of my nomination (here), it appears a consensus of users have in fact agreed with the nomination and, in keeping with the democratic foundations of Wikipedia, have voted in favour of my motion(s).

Success! --Qwerty Binary (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, well, well! I told you I would be VERY impressed. I am indeed VERY impressed. A good job, and done very well. Congratulations!

It's almost enough to stop me being a grumpy old man for a few days ...

Thank you very much for exercising your skill and eloquence with such great success. Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the late reply. I wouldn't worry about the suggestion to get rid of the RSs categories - no-one else thought it was a good idea so it wasn't implemented. I'd tend to agree that being a Rhodes Scholar is one of those things that keeps on being mentioned about people (i.e. is a defining characteristic) - a Google News search today shows someone in the US mentioning that the new Aussie prime minister is a Rhodes Scholar before mentioning his political leanings; an article headlined "Rhodes Scholar Wins Australia Election"; another news story headlined "Hightstown Rhodes Scholar is one of George's alleged victims"; and I could go on (e.g. Bill Clinton has often had his scholarship mentioned). Anyway, all's well at present I think. WP:OXFORD could be more active, I suppose, but Wikiprojects tend to fluctuate in enthusiasm over the years. There are certainly some active people around on Oxford articles, but the project talk page doesn't see much discussion unless something needs doing. Feel free to post relevant messages there, though, as a few useful people have it on their watchlists. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 17:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply