Bwmcmaste

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's Nobody's Fault But Mine

Santiago Ramón y Cajal

First let me say that I really hate tagging of articles, because it expresses an opinion by making an article look ugly. I always have trouble dealing with them in a non-hostile way. But trying my best to be non-hostile, let me say second that I believe in this case the "peacock" language is justified by the sources -- you simply don't get an accurate picture of Ramon y Cajal if you don't know that neuroscientists consider him the most important discoverer in the history of the subject, and that in an area where things older than 10-20 years are rarely mentioned, his drawings from over a hundred years ago are still frequently used because of their beauty. How can you accurately describe a superlative person without using superlatives? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reasoned discussion: I have included a section in the article's talk page regarding my justification for placing the aforementioned templates on the above page.bwmcmaste (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Commedia dell'arte

Hi. I'm a copyeditor working on the Commedia dell'arte page. Should have had the copyedit banner up. The article needs refs, which I've been finding, but more importantly I've just discovered that each character has a separate page, so I'm considering moving all the character info out of the article, or combining everything. Anyway, thanks for the tags. Had to step away for a few days to work on other articles, and to consider how to restructure this series. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added the refs I've found in the working ref list at the bottom of the article. Unfortunately have been sidetracked, but am finishing two articles at the moment and should be back to that one soon. Having spent several days mulling it over, I tend to agree with your assessment of how to break out the separate characters; but some of the pages, unlike Harlequin, are extremely sparse and will need refs and development. Either way, the article has good potential and I'd planned to take my time to get it right. Again, thanks for the tags and the eyes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Everlast

I have no problem with anything you did, and I'm not ordinarily concerned with reedits of material I wrote. The "Edit war" I got into over Everlast was with an Eminem fan who seemed to wanna get into their lyrical war more than was necessary. Finally, the only comprimise we could reach was to source all the songs in the lyrical battle so anyone wishe=ing to read the whole song could. It was a nightmare. Anyway, You might wanna remove the tag at the top stating that it needs more sources if you've corrected that.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Chauncey Leopardi

Hello Bwmcmaste, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Chauncey Leopardi - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. decltype (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Chauncey Leopardi

Hello Bwmcmaste, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Chauncey Leopardi - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of notability, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Parrot Records

This is a supporting citation in the Parrot Records article, but I made it more obvious now. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire

I've copyedited the section of Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire that you flagged. (I also borrowed a book about the fire from the library and added some detail and a number of citations.) Just wanted to let you know. --NellieBly (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ruby Ridge fact tag

Hello. You might want to look at this (or not). Naaman Brown (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

Hello, Bwmcmaste. You have new messages at Talk:The Haunting in Connecticut/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Blood, Sweat and Tears, and "dead piping"

Saw your work on the article for Blood, Sweat & Tears. Never heard the term "dead piping" before; apparently you use it to mean any red link, piped or not? Have you read Wikipedia:Red link? Basically it says that red links are not a bad thing, and we should not make a policy of removing them, unless it is very unlikely the subject will ever have an article. In music related articles, I tend to keep red links, especially if the artist is still living and working, because even if they haven't done enough work to make them notable yet, they may do something more notable in future. Or they may have already, and we just haven't covered it yet. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

When creating a new article, I usually avoid wikilinking names of minor people who do not have articles. Though I do wikilink some names, for example the leader of the group, who may be notable enough to have his own article, since the band does. So I'm in agreement your preference to not link, when you're the original author of the article. However, when it comes to changing existing articles, be aware that there is a rule which specifically recommonds leaving in red links. So you may think you are improving articles by taking them out, while someone else is improving articles by going around and putting them in, and theirs is actually the more valid activity since they are following the guidelines. Sometimes changes like this go back and forth, and it's one of those things that never reaches an "ideal" because there is no definitive way to say which non-articles should be redlinked. So I look at this as a pointless change. Just my opinion, and a warning that this kind of change is likely to be reverted on other articles, and the reverters have the guideline to back them up. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Haunting in Connecticut GA review

Hello Bwmcmaste, I'm afraid I've failed The Haunting in Connecticut as a GA, as it does not meet the criteria at this time. I've left some detailed comments at the review page. It's quite a long list but please don't be discouraged, I wanted to give you as many pointers as possible on what needs to be done. Please ask if you have any questions. good luck, --BelovedFreak 11:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Astor family

Getting rid of the "Multiple issues" box, someone seems to have been worked on since you added it. Revert me if still unsatisfied. Couch on his Head and Smiling (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Biographical information policy proposal

I have proposed a change in policy at [[WT:BLP#Do we need a WP:BILP policy?]], it should explain what my motivation was. Also sent to some other people: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. <( User:Couch on his Head and Smiling (talk) )> 06:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Electric Dylan Controversy

Bwmcmaste, I can see why you placed a 'Tone' tag on this article. I've re-written it, trying to improve the style and the references. Please take a look, and see if you feel like rescinding the 'Tone' tag. best Mick gold (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, I have removed the tag. bwmcmaste (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

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) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)