Contents

User talk:The Whispering Wind

This user may have left Wikipedia. The Whispering Wind has not edited Wikipedia since February 2017. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Problems with ClueBot NG[edit]

I'm letting you know that I've just put you on the whitelist on good faith. If it still works, you should not be bothered by the bot anymore. --Σ ^talk_contribs 23:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I appreciate this gesture. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, The Whispering Wind. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Auric talk 01:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I seem to have found my way back! :-) The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extremely helpful improvements to St. Joseph's High School (Renfrew). :)

Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kitten!. :-) The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your work on Jane Austen College, despite my over-hasty deletion nomination. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Much appreciated. :-) The Whispering Wind (talk)

Thanks for the notification and the kind words. I'm just back from a week's holiday, and so have a lot to catch up on, but I'll try to find time to take a look at it. JH (talk page) 17:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whispering. Do you know Tom Townsend or have contact information and time to ask him about identity? I consider three points separately in doubt: full name, birth date, and authorship of the two children's fiction books attributed to him by the US Library of Congress.[1]

--P64 (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I regret that I do not know Tom Townsend nor do I have any contact information. A good first route might be to 'phone The Daily Telegraph on +44 20 7931 2000 then ask for Customer services who may be able to suggest a contact email address. Also similarly perhaps try the English Bridge Union on +44 1296 317200. HTH. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a line about it in Disney Channel#Other services and voted to retarget it there if you feel that's more appropriate. Nate • (chatter) 09:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have expanded it a little and it now looks a good retarget. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have my full permission to help with that article.--Launchballer 19:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now live at Thigh gap. The DYK nomination is in at Template:Did you know nominations/Thigh gap.--Launchballer 10:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Nice job. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks so much for your guidance and input on how to handle the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New bangla academy building merge. I really appreciate you taking the time to show me a new "to do" on wiki. SarahStierch (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks! :-) The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

== Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana M. Haggard (album) ==uknsz .ikx gphm.

tn ud

Thanks for seeing that. I thought thp ztgnhobuovlvixo hey were all list. n . I'm lied in a the one AfD. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello The Whispering Wind,

I just wanted to let you know that it looks like DumbBOT, the bot that creates the new WP:RFD subpages, as well as posting the link onto Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, is not functioning. This bot has not made any edits since November 23. I recently had to transclude Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 24 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 25 onto WP:RFD; they were never there until I added their transclusions. Also, the bot usually creates the subpages a few days in advance, and has not been doing that either; I went ahead and created the subpages up until December 1st.

I let the bot's owner, User:Tizio, know about DumbBOT's malfunctioning. It looks like it might have been shut off, but I cannot be for certain. Either way, I wanted to give you this "heads-up" in case the daily pages might need to be created and transcluded manually. Steel1943 (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, thank you. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You commented at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 25#Silcone Valley. That discussion was closed with consensus to retarget the Silicone Valley redirect to Silicon Valley. Your opinion would now be welcome about whether Silcon Valley should have a hatnote pointing to San Fernando Valley#Adult ednterainment, the former target of the redirect and only other notable meaning of the term. Please comment at Talk:Silicon Valley#Hatnote, thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Due to my sporadic Wikibreaks, after looking at some of the forums I had previously observed, call me crazy, but since I remembered that you actively participated in WP:RFD quite frequently, I had actually thought that you retired or went missing. I just saw your contribution list, which told me otherwise. So, I hope all is well; also, if you feel up to participating in WP:RFD again, I'm certain that your participation would be quite welcomed, especially considering the backlog that could use some good participation via votes, relistings, or NACs. Best regards, Steel1943 (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these kind sentiments. I will return to RFD when real life becomes a little less hectic! The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whispering Wind! I'm contacting you because of your comment here. You seemed extremely confident that sources could be found to expand the article, but I'm having a really hard time finding anything but basketball scores. Could you help locate just one source that provides some information to flesh out/expand the article so as to help establish the notability of the school? Thanks. 70.235.84.89 (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sadly pressure of real life means I have little time to spend on Wikipedia these days. I am therefore not able to make the necessary searches likely to be needed to turn up Internet sources but, if they are proving hard to track down, the next best approach is to research local sources - library, hard-copy newspapers etc. which often hold material on local schools.The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Guide to abbreviations used in deletion debates, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Guide to abbreviations used in deletion debates and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Guide to abbreviations used in deletion debates during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to oppose your closing of the redirect Olga de Kireef Novikoff, but your reasoning is not really correct. You give the policy "Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.", and then go on to explain how this one isn't harmful; but you fail to recognise that it is very recent (two days old at the time of nomination), which is the second possible reason in your given policy sentence. When a policy says "Do A when X or Y", then it isn't enough to show that "X" doesn't apply, as long as "Y" is correct. I know that this won't change the outcome of the debate, but please try to take the full policy into account, not the one part that hasn't been argued. Fram (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for raising this thought-provoking point. However, the policy allows recently created redirects to be deleted but doesn't say that they must be nor that they should be considered for deletion because of being recently created; the default remains for redirects to be kept and there needs to be a good reason for deleting. Had policy said that redirects should be considered for deletion by virtue of being recently created then you would be correct that I should have addressed it in my close. However, as policy stands, since this ground for deletion was not raised in the discussion, I remain of the view that it was unnecessary to comment upon it, though I guess we may have to agree to differ on that! Best, The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, only being recent of course isn't sufficient, but they don't have to be recent and harmful, they just have to be recent and unlikely at the same time (or old and harmful, and so on). The discussion could be closed as keep or no consensus because there was disagreement about it being an unlikely redirect, but the close focused on the "not harmful" part, which seemed to me rather irrelevant. But it's more a philosophical thing, I'm not going to try to overturn a closure for getting the right result for a somewhat wrong reason :-) Fram (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; and you will have spotted in my next RFD close that I acted on your suggestion. :-) The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...Welcome back! Steel1943 (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :-) The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me an example of another "List of schools in xyz" article which has similar content? Or is the Unicorn School so unique that it needs to have this information added? Atlas-maker (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn is not unique, core information should be added for each of the schools. List of schools in Santa Cruz County, California shows a typical format. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that example seems to be a table rather than a list. None of the English school lists are like that, as far as I'm aware. Do you know of any? Really, if you want to change the format of all English school lists, Bromley is not the place to do it. You need to pitch it somewhere like WP:England. Changing a single entry for a single recently redirected school smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is nothing relating to the subject matter of the article - Schools in Bromley - in what you have added. Information of that nature might have a home in Bromley#Education. You haven't convinced me at all. Atlas-maker (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the best lists are in table format; have a look at the featured lists for examples. I added this school because an article on the school was redirected here. It would be undue weight to add information on a primary school to Bromley#Education. I am aware that many of the England lists of schools are simply lists of names; frankly these are of doubtful value but that is another question. As stated on your talk page, if not happy the way forward is to raise the matter on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the MoS. It's a content dispute. The issue is simply whether the content you were adding has any relevance to the article in question. As others have pointed out, it doesn't . Atlas-maker (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Family Building Society at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Edwardx (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Great point! Now fixed so the lead is now strictly in compliance with the source. The Whispering Wind (talk)

Hey there! I had one other concern related to your phrasing and the attribution used in the article related to the Telegraph source, so please check out your nomination's entry. Thanks, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point and I have rephrased. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are two other places in the article I've pointed out in the nomination that should be rephrased more holistically; sorry, I should have done a more thorough check initially! I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 11:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I have rephrased. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On8 August 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Family Building Society, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Family Building Society, opened in July 2014, is the UK's first new building society since 1981? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Family Building Society. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Harrias ^talk 14:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On11 August 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Walking football, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that walking football has become a fashionable form of exercise for over-50s with mobility difficulties? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Walking football. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really interesting little article. It may be worth adding it to Variants of association football and perhaps even creating a navbox to link those various topics. J Milburn (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these thoughts. I have now actioned your suggestions. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Hitler to the page Wikipedia:Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Hitler redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. (Notifying editors involved in previous RfD for WP:HITLER and talk discussion) ― Padenton|✉   22:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Whispering Wind/Culture and Science City, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Whispering Wind/Culture and Science City and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:The Whispering Wind/Culture and Science City during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand removing the child category from Durham, Arkansas. Most editors of these types of articles add both the parent and child. It's very helpful to readers to have a master list and county list. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'm happy to go along with what is most helpful. The Whispering Wind (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jewel of India. Since you had some involvement with the Jewel of India redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Machine gun nest. Since you had some involvement with the Machine gun nest redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]