Topical Archives:
Deletion reform,
Speedies,
Notability ,
IPC & Fiction,
WP:Academic things & people,
Journals
General Archives:
Sep08,
Oct08, ... ,
Dec08,
Jan09,
Feb09,
Mar09,
Hey DGG, I don't know what has gotten into you lately, but I know that you know what I am about to remind you of... but over the past several days I've had to correct several of your RfA comments. You keep forgetting to put the pound sign (#) at the start of your comments, which has thrown the numbering off. I KNOW that you know to do that, but I've fixed at least 3 of your comments on Berig's RfA where you've forgotten.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm happy that my comments were understood and welcomed. I tried to look at the issue from a balanced position, I didn't consider that the issue at hand deserved a ban (I explained why) but the guy is really unpleasant and doesn't know when to stop and shut up. That was my last comment on that thread. man with one red shoe ( talk) 03:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The Story of Maths has been tagged for rescue. -- IRP ☎ 22:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, hope all is well in your world. when you have a moment, can you have a look see at this article. I was contacted off wiki about its speedy and after a discussion with the deleting admin, I restored it because I found additional sourcing that in my mind fully avoided any A7. That said, he's set some Malayam publishing records and I think he's notable, but I wondered about WorldCat holdings or any other tidbits you might have up your librarian sleeve ;) It may be that he isn't notable -- but I think he is and hopefully he'll at least get an AfD this go around TravellingCari 19:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello DGG. It's very reassuring to see your comments. My faith in Wikipedia had shaken a little when this unfortunate episode started. But, after seeing the intervention of TravellingCari in the episode and your comments here, my faith has got strengthened than ever. Thanks! Salih (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
If you have time, can you do me a personal favor? I am considering doing an RfA, to help out and learn a few things. I have a request in for coaching and contacted a coach two days ago (no reply as of yet). You have seen me participate in heated discussions and everyday stuff more than a couple times. I was wondering your honest opinion on the matter, if you believe I would make a suitable admin, or am I wasting my time, or any other input you would want to offer. I have 2+ years and 8k edits here with no issues, I'm over 40 with a moderately technical background. I would prefer an answer, but will not take any offense or pass judgement if you would choose to simply delete the request and not comment, or simply don't have the time to look back and give an opinion. PHARMBOY ( moo) ( plop) 23:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
They are not synonyms, but illegitimate homonymss. The taxa validly refer to species (at least tentatively), but not to those where they redirect to. See ILDIS.
I never have any idea what template to use for deletions, the scheme has gottenm very obscure. Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 21:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
What started out as a content dispute has morphed into a case of vandalism. The guy concedes he's going to get blocked, and is not interested in engaging. I have posted this on RFC, but it's taking hours, and I'm getting tired of undoing his vandalism. Can you do something about this less than 1 month old user? JJJ999 ( talk) 04:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
This is impossible. It has been four days, yet user JJJ999 has failed to produce direct quotes. Do you agree? Dynablaster ( talk) 15:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The WikiProject Novels Newsletter
Issue 28 - November 2008 | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot ( talk) 05:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
FYI, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pixelface_and_WP:NOT. Pete.Hurd ( talk) 18:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought you'd be interested in and might like to comment on the above. RMHED ( talk) 21:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi DGG. I see from the deletion log that you deleted this article in July 08, either because you were the author or in response to the author's request. I have no idea what was there, but it seems like a topic which should have an article - it is correctly referenced from Product Management. I'm prepared to attempt to write one. Although I'm new here I think I can dig up sufficient references to justify it. It would be interesting to know what was there before, and why it was inadequate - have you access to the text, or any other information about the page?
thanks, Roland. Rhanbury ( talk) 10:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
That was the only one. Here's what happened:
-- NE2 16:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, DGG. In sourcing article about these, are the official state government home page for the legislator adequate as a WP:RS? Or must one independently dredge what he can find out of news accounts and books? Cheers, Dloh cierekim 04:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
A More Perfect Onion ( talk) 13:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Can you take a look at an AFD? There is a 50/50 split on this, and your background is perfect for this. I think it is just a matter of good faith "lack of imagination" by the nom, but then again, I could simply be wrong. On this, I would trust your interpretation of the guidelines over my own. DENNIS BROWN ( T) ( C) 21:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I remembered you commented in the recent AfD for Rick Ross (consultant); there is a related thread on RS/N here, and your comments are invited. It's an issue that could do with wider input. Cheers, Jayen 466 23:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I had to revert an edit you did that appeared to be from a couple-day old version of WT:NOT, as it removed about 50k of comments since. You may want to restate your point again. -- MASEM 05:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).
We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
22:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
are recipients inherently notable? Cheers, Dloh cierekim 17:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I have edited Centralia power plant, and I think that the article no longer a copyvio. You might want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centralia power plant. -- Eastmain ( talk) 19:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Really, this is past the pall now. Not only has he basically ignored my lengthly reply, and failed to offer any constructive criticism on the wording, but he pupports to speak on your behalf in these claims, saying "we" give you 4 days (and he means you, as he mentions your support earlier on the page. Can you please tell him to stop editing this page? He's not providing anything productive here. For example, there is now a source to support that Moore has been ducking debates aside from Hitchens. I have asked him for comment on how to reword it, and he offers nothing. It's clearly relevant, yet he obviously intends to delete it rather than modify the wording JJJ999 ( talk) 23:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
You said, "might well meet PROF -- try afd if you like". I prodded the article because I see no reason to think Houston meets WP:ACADEMIC. Do you actually think he does, and if so which item? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 00:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Because of the number of speedy deletion requests of mine that you decline, and because our relationship is rapidly approaching antagonistic, I would ask you to recuse yourself from declining any other CSD requests I make and request the input of another administrator. Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 20:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC) You are under several misapprehensions.
Thanks for your kind note on my discussion page. Personally I was shocked to see Saleem Sinai nominated for deletion. That said, I was impressed with your willingness to take a suggestion in the spirit in which it was offered. I'm not big on walking on egg shells, but people seem to take things personally. Take care. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I called you once an "unapologetic inclusionist". Although I don't think that was insulting per se, based on additional, albeit indirect interaction between us at AfD, I realize my stereotyping of you was inaccurate. So, I apologize for it. VG ☎ 03:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
His book Pigs in the Parlor (1973) may be more notable then just he is. PROD ends tomorrow. "frank hammond" and "pigs in the parlor" gets 9 scholar hits, book alone 38, he gets over 100. On google, I am finding mainly 'buy here' for his book, which is claimed to have sold over 1 million. This seems like one of those I should try to save, and I'm trying, just a bit lost as to how. He and I don't share the same philosophy, and Christian articles aren't my specialty, but my gut tells me that he should qualify. Any pointers? Am I wasting time and should move on? DENNIS BROWN ( T) ( C) 23:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
There were two articles nominated for deletion. The Kingdom of Laighin is still there. McWomble ( talk) 08:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I want to let you know about my re-nomination of Tung-Wang for deletion. Previously you voted to keep on notability grounds, but I think if you examine the sources you will see they don't really verify him. Juzhong ( talk) 14:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
You denied the CSD and, based on your response, I am not sure you looked at the "whole picture". I said in the edit summery this was a "G11 - also a bit of G12 - http://www.molsoft.com/icm_browser.html. (Companies article, Molsoft, was G11 on January 11, 2007)" Your comment in response was "As reviewing administrator: I think the article not exclusively promotional -- speedy declined . & there's a reference. Consider a merge with Molsoft.." Perhaps you can take a closer look. There is no indication if the reference is about the software or if it is solely about about Internal Coordinate Mechanics. I tend to actually look at an article, look at is links and look at it's history before making CSD type noms. This article says zero about the software other than what is on the Molsoft websites download page. Special:Contributions/Eugeneraush shows it was probably a cut and paste from the website, perhaps by someone who worked for Molsoft at the time. The footnote/ref was added later when someone was trying to clean up the article so it would appear less "blatant". External links both go to Molsoft. Thanks! Soundvisions1 ( talk) 06:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Somehow I missed the fictional part. My apologies...
ttonyb1 ( talk) 00:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I just nominated Oxford International Film Festival for deletion, if you'd like to weigh in. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 01:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI, I've unblocked 71.175.247.168 after seeing it in Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely-blocked IPs. I gathered you did not mean to block indefinitely. – xeno ( talk) 20:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Hiya! When/if you have a moment, can you have a look at this discussion on my talk, please? I userfied the article for an editor and s/he has worked hard to improve it. My issue with restoring is I'm not sure he meets the notability guidelines even with extra sourcing. It was deleted at AfD and I was the closing admin. My thoughts had been toward DRV but the user is understandably hesitant to do so. I said I'd ask your thoughts since you may be able to weigh in re: holdings of the subject's books. I'm not sure he's notable -- don't think he isn't for sure but I want to avoid this being immediately re-deleted (as either a G4 even though it isn't or another AfD that might snow). Thoughts/ StarM 01:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
If you have opinions about the proposed arbitration, please consider posting them to the WP:RFAR page. The Committee has seemed reluctant to accept cases. I believe they can be swayed by thoughtful opinions. Jehochman Talk 04:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
So, apparently, I declined a speedy because this article asserted notability, and then tagged the article because it did not assert notability. So much for editing on a Friday afternoon. In any event, thanks for the catch. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
:That article is a hoax. I put it up for speedy as such. And posted it to ANI.
ChildofMidnight (
talk) 20:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC) I stand corrected. It's apparently legitimate.
ChildofMidnight (
talk)
20:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai ( talk) 16:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Just curious what you meant by this edit? Nyttend ( talk) 21:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Did you put two votes in at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_A._Hicks one of which belongs in another AfD discussion? See this diff]. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 21:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi DGG, In light of your well-articulated comments with regard to List of alleged UFO-related entities I thought you might like to know that several related categories are also up for deletion (nominated by the same editor). Cgingold ( talk) 14:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting me at my successful Rfa! Hope to work more with you in the future!-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
An editor is trying to force other editors to identify themselves on a BIO talkpage.
Talk:Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
Thanks
LoveMonkey (
talk)
21:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks DGG it is most appreciated. LoveMonkey ( talk) 01:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The deletion of that article is being discussed, and I appreciate your input. And be sure to notify all who voted "keep" or "merge" about it too. FMAFan1990 ( talk) 01:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Would you perhaps have some sources to suggest or insights to offer in regards to the List of dodgeball variations article and its AfD? I haven't had a chance to add to the article yet, but I included mention of the best sources I could find at the AfD. Gracias as always. The Dodgeball article is pretty bad too. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 08:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shirley the Loon. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle ( talk) 10:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Per discussion at the November 16 New York City meetup, bylaws will be decided on-wiki with a deadline of 2 weeks to complete the process. Please read the proposed bylaws, and comment on them before the process ends on December 1. Thanks for participating!-- Pharos ( talk) 22:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I only checked Amazon, and after seeing that Taubes had some book on diet stuff, I didn't bother looking anywhere else. Mea culpa. Pcap ping 12:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Could you have a look at One Team, One Dream and the related AfD? The article's creator (who appears to be the book's author) is trying to meet our guidelines and have an article included. They'e added some media coverage, but I don't know if it's enough. Thanks as always. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 05:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi DGC,
Tmtoulouse cited Patrick Wanis yesterday as spam or for speedy deletion and i immediately responded by spending five hours including external links, sources and citations to improve the article so that it did not appear as blatant advertising. As soon as i finished writing and adding all of the information, you deleted the entire page/article before there was any discussion to keep or delete. I did not know where to write "hangon" or how to do this. Can you please assist me? What is required to get the Wanis page back up (restored) and who makes that decision. If you google, "patrick wanis" you will see that he is a notable person. You can even check this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescent_sexuality_in_the_United_States to see that he is cited elsewhere in Wikipedia and that page cites a newspaper article quoting Wanis. Also, Wanis' page has been up since 2006 and now, that i went to update it, add sources and expand upon it, my work and the page have been deleted. He is now a PhD and i did not even have a chance to include that... Please advise.. Thanks, Chris CVBPW ( talk) 06:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
A shout-out is what I call an article whose content is basically "HI, EVERYONE AT SCHOOL (X)" or "MY BEST FRIEND IS (Y)"... where the goal is to just get someone's name mentioned in Wikipedia.
I don't bother memorizing all the CSD codes. I know the reasons that are attached to those codes, and I use rationales that should be comprehensible to the people who created the articles in the first place. DS ( talk) 17:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I know that we sometimes disagree on whether an article should be kept or deleted, and even when we disagree, I always respect your opinion. 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 [5]. Best wishes. Mandsford ( talk) 23:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Greetings. You wrote on my Talk page:
I like your approach better. It never hurts for us all to be reminded to keep it civil, but I will not put up with threats like the other editor made. Needless to say, I appreciate that you redacted the comments that crossed the line. Best wishes. Mandsford ( talk) 17:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Please let me know as soon as Bow Tie Wearers goes to DRV, as it feels like the closing Admin completely ignored consensus. Kinda defeats the purpose of the AfD process. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi DGG was the wikipedia copyright notice always on the answers.com page? I never spotted it. Sorry about that. BigDunc Talk 15:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Found an article at AfD that looked like it could be saved from deletion. I took THIS and turned it into THIS. I was still in process of expanding the article when the synopsis section got tagged as a copyvio. Per instructuion of the tag, and wishing to address the concern, I created a temp page and corrected the synopsis, basing the rewrite upon the official website and other sources, but not copying them. How do I getthe copyvio tage removed, since it has been addresed? I hate the thought that even seeing that might color an editor's coomments at the AfD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, sorry about that, I meant to put the URL in and then had to do something else. I can't seem to find the article online though. I've wikified it a bit, but the article needs serious clean up. -- Bethan 182 ( talk) 15:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello David, I read at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/Resources that you had an access to ODNB and you could provide articles. I recently stumbled accross William II's bio which was available for free through their 'lives of the Week' service, and I now plan to rewrite the norman kings' articles on the french wikipedia. Could you get me William I, Henry I and Stephen articles ? Thanks a lot in advance ! PurpleHz ( talk) 22:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC) PS : my mail is purplehz at gmail.com.
On the issue of Fraternities, I would tend to think the "Alpha" or first chapter of a fraternity or sorority Organization would hold a right to have a wiki page dedicated to it, as typically the "Alpha" or first chapter holds the most information on the fraternity/sorority's creation and history. -- Tomblights00 ( talk) 21:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)tombstone00-- Tomblights00 ( talk) 21:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I added some references to Woodhead Publishing Limited and removed the copyvio text. -- Eastmain ( talk) 22:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
This is beyond my pay grade. The individual appears notable but this new article is a mess, and I think that it requires someone with your experience to look at it. It speaks for itself. DENNIS BROWN ( T) ( C) 01:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know. I'll leave a comment at his talk page in a bit. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps its time we opened an ANI report about his constant tagging of acceptable new articles? Count Blofeld 10:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Crngrob with just 33 people looks like a lot of encyclopedic information could be written about it. Have a good sleep! Count Blofeld 11:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
David (or others watching), when you wake up can you possibly look to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of town tramway systems in Asia? I'd already voted before I realised it was one in a series of dubious noms. It's a universal keep so far, just like the others. StarM 16:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
heh I was aware of events but as author of one of the targeted articles didn't feel it was right to step in. Geni 18:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure. He seems to have gone to doing AV work since the block expired. However, a lot of his reverts are actually restoring vandalism or other bad edits. I think I will restore the block. Daniel Case ( talk) 22:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I'll try to slow it down a little. As for that particular article, I didn't think that every professor was notable enough for Wikipedia. Obviously, if there was something distinguishing that they were involved with, or were of particular importance to the school, then they would be notable enough. However, at the time I tagged the article, it simply stated that she was a professor at M.I.T. and was in a certain department. I didn't think this merited having her own article. If you could get back to me about this I would appreciate it. TheXenocide ( talk) 01:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that ScienceApologist, who was the nom for List of alleged UFO-related entities had just changed it to a redirect. I reverted back and left a message on the talk page and his talk page politely requesting that a discussion be held before a move this bold. Just wanted to make sure you were aware, after the AFD which you were active in. DENNIS BROWN ( T) ( C) 00:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Due to the constant disruption of List of alleged UFO-related entities , I have entered a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_user_ScienceApologist DENNIS BROWN ( T) ( C) 00:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Done. I doubt there's anything even you can do for that article, but you're welcome to go for it. It's a student essay. As always interested to see your input. StarM 13:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello David, it has been awhile since I have gotten you involved in anything. Can you do me a favor and look at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Windman discussion. It seems like an unusual number of new users, only contributions are to this discussion, involved. With regards to the article staying or not, always believed it should be left up to consensus. In this case, I believe justice may be peaking under her blindfold. Thanks for your help. ShoesssS Talk 21:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Greetings, DGG! Another editor and I have a disagreement Tiger kidnapping, and whether or not it should be moved to Wiktionary. It's a fairly short article and talk page, would you have the time to look it over and offer your opinion?-- otherl left No, really, other way . . . 22:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A Nobody My talk 02:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
No matter your !vote at my RfA (and not trying to sway it any, I promise), I wanted to thank you for the little kick in the butt you gave me. I was motivated to go back and copyedit both C. M. Eddy, Jr. and Humphrey Kynaston, almost doubling the size of each. I have been so caught up with the NP patrolling that it had been a while since I had looked back at some of the articles I had written (some as far back as 2 years ago). I plan on working on quite a few of them in the near future. Again, however my RfA goes, thanks for the nudge... - Adolphus79 ( talk) 05:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi David, sorry to bother you with this, and if it isn't something you want to involve yourself in I completely accept that and, for whatever the reason, understand. I noticed the following post on another user's talk page [6] and I'm concerned about what seems to be an aggresive and antagonistic (uncivil?) attempt at intimidation to obstruct an editor from participating and offering their opinion in AfDs. The post includes accusations, but no evidence of improper action. When I looked into one of the AfDs I couldn't find any disruptive posts (except, ironically, from others). While I haven't always agreed with your conclusions or votes at AfD, I respect you as a fair and reasonable arbiter, so that's why I'm asking. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 17:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I have cut the section on student achievements as you suggested for Jock McKeen. Do you have further recommendations for this article, or for Bennet Wong or Haven Institute? I appreciate your help. William Meyer ( talk) 22:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I found your explanation for keeping this article [7]constructive and persuasive. I have taken the liberty of copying your comment to the article talkpage because i think other editors clearly need concrete constructive suggestions for how to research and improve the article. If you think what I did was inappropriate, my apologies and do what you wish, but I hope you will consider developing your comment into more practical guidance for other editors who may be willing to work on the article in earnest. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
You strike me as a methodical editor - for a while, Scientific research in Canada has sat on my watchlist - I look at it and look at it and then my eyes hurt and I turn away. Any suggestions? sub-articles? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 14:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Without waiting for any consensus on the talk page or discussion he has AGAIN undone all the changes I made, and removed sourced material. Can this page please be locked to avoid 3R, and can you please talk to this guy so I don't need to have him banned. He's clearly just waited to see if he can get away with it, noticed I'm still watching the page, and mass revised it. His comments on the talk page are initially empty, then he makes some more and without waiting for a reply immedietely undoes everything! JJJ999 ( talk) 14:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if you're watching it already, but if not would you (and this extends to the other regular readers of this page) be willing to keep a second pair of eyes on Articles for deletion/July 29 in rail transport? Not only is this showing all the signs of a discussion that's about to degenerate into a flamewar (although at least the SPAs have not yet started appearing), but whatever decision is reached here is likely to be pointed at as a precedent for deleting/keeping whole swathes of similar "this day in history" type pages. As someone who's written quite a lot of railway-history material that would be tangentially affected by this particular test case (although I'm not a member of WP:TRAINS, and didn't know these pages existed until the AFD), any defense I make of the existing setup is open to accusations of bias.
I appreciate that the last time a similar case came up, at
Articles for deletion/619 in Ireland, I was arguing for deletion, but that was because in that case the articles seemed to me to be better suited to a "this decade in…" format, and that alternative doesn't apply here. –
iride
scent
16:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Note to anyone concerned: this is not
canvassing – DGG has already participated in the AFD debate in question.
Hello! I have set up Wikipedia:Editor review/A Nobody should you wish to comment. Please note that I am notifying a handful of experienced editors who are familiar with me as I am particularly interested in anything they have to add. If you do not wish to comment, that is fine too. All the best! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 21:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The page should not be deleted on the terms of A7 (group) due to the following criteria: 1. The organization is notable as it is not a part of chain or franchise (Notable) 2. The organization is cited to show unusual business practices (worthy of being noted). 3. The article uses credible references and has appropriate links to verify information such as newspaper articles. Primary sources and secondary sources are listed. 4. The article follows a neutral point of view without advertising.
I am new to wiki, and need some instructions (if possible) to know how to recreate it. Thank you. -- Tomblights00 ( talk) 21:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Tombstone00-- Tomblights00 ( talk) 21:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I have requested a copy of the original from an adminstrator -- Tomblights00 ( talk) 21:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)tombstone00-- Tomblights00 ( talk) 21:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I contest your argument that the article on both arguments of "guise of advertisement" and also "defamation". First, the article is posted with a neutral point of view required by Wikipedia. The article give facts without any opinions. References are clearly posted. Secondly, i contest the article is defamatory. I point to the fact that your contention of the article being irrevelant on point #1 and point #2 contradict itself. If the article was "in guise of advertisment" however point #2 is "defamation" is contradictory. Again, the article is written from a neutral point of view, without bias. -- Tomblights00 ( talk) 08:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)tombstone00-- Tomblights00 ( talk) 08:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
JClemens' RfA Thanks | ||
Thank you for participating in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 77 supporting and 2 opposing. Regardless of your position, I thank you for the time you took to examine my record and formulate your response. Jclemens ( talk) 02:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC) |
I put SierraSil up for speedy or prod deletion, although it does have some mentions in sources (though the news ones are mainly press releases or industry publications of believers in such things.) I was not sure about the speedy, though the tone was quite advertisingy. Now the creator has messaged me saying I should have helped him write a non-advertisment version. I was wondering if you would give me your opinion on whether the subject's notable etc. enough for an article; would the subject pass AfD for instance in your opinion? Sticky Parkin 16:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
In the afd discussion you suggested changing the name of Novelty theory. I suggest changing it to Timewave zero, which is currently a redirect to Novelty theory. The reason for this choice is that Timewave zero seems to be a much more common name for this stuff than Novelty theory, and somewhat more common than Time wave zero. As an admin, would you be able to make the move, or is there some process that should be gone though? Cardamon ( talk) 07:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I see you've suggested a few merges over at SASTRA University. Please provide a rationale for these here as per WP:MM. Thank You! (talk) raghuvansh (contribs) 21:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Topical Archives:
Deletion reform,
Speedies,
Notability ,
IPC & Fiction,
WP:Academic things & people,
Journals
General Archives:
Sep08,
Oct08, ... ,
Dec08,
Jan09,
Feb09,
Mar09,
Hey DGG, I don't know what has gotten into you lately, but I know that you know what I am about to remind you of... but over the past several days I've had to correct several of your RfA comments. You keep forgetting to put the pound sign (#) at the start of your comments, which has thrown the numbering off. I KNOW that you know to do that, but I've fixed at least 3 of your comments on Berig's RfA where you've forgotten.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm happy that my comments were understood and welcomed. I tried to look at the issue from a balanced position, I didn't consider that the issue at hand deserved a ban (I explained why) but the guy is really unpleasant and doesn't know when to stop and shut up. That was my last comment on that thread. man with one red shoe ( talk) 03:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The Story of Maths has been tagged for rescue. -- IRP ☎ 22:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, hope all is well in your world. when you have a moment, can you have a look see at this article. I was contacted off wiki about its speedy and after a discussion with the deleting admin, I restored it because I found additional sourcing that in my mind fully avoided any A7. That said, he's set some Malayam publishing records and I think he's notable, but I wondered about WorldCat holdings or any other tidbits you might have up your librarian sleeve ;) It may be that he isn't notable -- but I think he is and hopefully he'll at least get an AfD this go around TravellingCari 19:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello DGG. It's very reassuring to see your comments. My faith in Wikipedia had shaken a little when this unfortunate episode started. But, after seeing the intervention of TravellingCari in the episode and your comments here, my faith has got strengthened than ever. Thanks! Salih (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
If you have time, can you do me a personal favor? I am considering doing an RfA, to help out and learn a few things. I have a request in for coaching and contacted a coach two days ago (no reply as of yet). You have seen me participate in heated discussions and everyday stuff more than a couple times. I was wondering your honest opinion on the matter, if you believe I would make a suitable admin, or am I wasting my time, or any other input you would want to offer. I have 2+ years and 8k edits here with no issues, I'm over 40 with a moderately technical background. I would prefer an answer, but will not take any offense or pass judgement if you would choose to simply delete the request and not comment, or simply don't have the time to look back and give an opinion. PHARMBOY ( moo) ( plop) 23:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
They are not synonyms, but illegitimate homonymss. The taxa validly refer to species (at least tentatively), but not to those where they redirect to. See ILDIS.
I never have any idea what template to use for deletions, the scheme has gottenm very obscure. Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 21:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
What started out as a content dispute has morphed into a case of vandalism. The guy concedes he's going to get blocked, and is not interested in engaging. I have posted this on RFC, but it's taking hours, and I'm getting tired of undoing his vandalism. Can you do something about this less than 1 month old user? JJJ999 ( talk) 04:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
This is impossible. It has been four days, yet user JJJ999 has failed to produce direct quotes. Do you agree? Dynablaster ( talk) 15:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The WikiProject Novels Newsletter
Issue 28 - November 2008 | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot ( talk) 05:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
FYI, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pixelface_and_WP:NOT. Pete.Hurd ( talk) 18:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought you'd be interested in and might like to comment on the above. RMHED ( talk) 21:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi DGG. I see from the deletion log that you deleted this article in July 08, either because you were the author or in response to the author's request. I have no idea what was there, but it seems like a topic which should have an article - it is correctly referenced from Product Management. I'm prepared to attempt to write one. Although I'm new here I think I can dig up sufficient references to justify it. It would be interesting to know what was there before, and why it was inadequate - have you access to the text, or any other information about the page?
thanks, Roland. Rhanbury ( talk) 10:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
That was the only one. Here's what happened:
-- NE2 16:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, DGG. In sourcing article about these, are the official state government home page for the legislator adequate as a WP:RS? Or must one independently dredge what he can find out of news accounts and books? Cheers, Dloh cierekim 04:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
A More Perfect Onion ( talk) 13:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Can you take a look at an AFD? There is a 50/50 split on this, and your background is perfect for this. I think it is just a matter of good faith "lack of imagination" by the nom, but then again, I could simply be wrong. On this, I would trust your interpretation of the guidelines over my own. DENNIS BROWN ( T) ( C) 21:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I remembered you commented in the recent AfD for Rick Ross (consultant); there is a related thread on RS/N here, and your comments are invited. It's an issue that could do with wider input. Cheers, Jayen 466 23:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I had to revert an edit you did that appeared to be from a couple-day old version of WT:NOT, as it removed about 50k of comments since. You may want to restate your point again. -- MASEM 05:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).
We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
22:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
are recipients inherently notable? Cheers, Dloh cierekim 17:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I have edited Centralia power plant, and I think that the article no longer a copyvio. You might want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centralia power plant. -- Eastmain ( talk) 19:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Really, this is past the pall now. Not only has he basically ignored my lengthly reply, and failed to offer any constructive criticism on the wording, but he pupports to speak on your behalf in these claims, saying "we" give you 4 days (and he means you, as he mentions your support earlier on the page. Can you please tell him to stop editing this page? He's not providing anything productive here. For example, there is now a source to support that Moore has been ducking debates aside from Hitchens. I have asked him for comment on how to reword it, and he offers nothing. It's clearly relevant, yet he obviously intends to delete it rather than modify the wording JJJ999 ( talk) 23:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
You said, "might well meet PROF -- try afd if you like". I prodded the article because I see no reason to think Houston meets WP:ACADEMIC. Do you actually think he does, and if so which item? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 00:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Because of the number of speedy deletion requests of mine that you decline, and because our relationship is rapidly approaching antagonistic, I would ask you to recuse yourself from declining any other CSD requests I make and request the input of another administrator. Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 20:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC) You are under several misapprehensions.
Thanks for your kind note on my discussion page. Personally I was shocked to see Saleem Sinai nominated for deletion. That said, I was impressed with your willingness to take a suggestion in the spirit in which it was offered. I'm not big on walking on egg shells, but people seem to take things personally. Take care. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I called you once an "unapologetic inclusionist". Although I don't think that was insulting per se, based on additional, albeit indirect interaction between us at AfD, I realize my stereotyping of you was inaccurate. So, I apologize for it. VG ☎ 03:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
His book Pigs in the Parlor (1973) may be more notable then just he is. PROD ends tomorrow. "frank hammond" and "pigs in the parlor" gets 9 scholar hits, book alone 38, he gets over 100. On google, I am finding mainly 'buy here' for his book, which is claimed to have sold over 1 million. This seems like one of those I should try to save, and I'm trying, just a bit lost as to how. He and I don't share the same philosophy, and Christian articles aren't my specialty, but my gut tells me that he should qualify. Any pointers? Am I wasting time and should move on? DENNIS BROWN ( T) ( C) 23:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
There were two articles nominated for deletion. The Kingdom of Laighin is still there. McWomble ( talk) 08:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I want to let you know about my re-nomination of Tung-Wang for deletion. Previously you voted to keep on notability grounds, but I think if you examine the sources you will see they don't really verify him. Juzhong ( talk) 14:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
You denied the CSD and, based on your response, I am not sure you looked at the "whole picture". I said in the edit summery this was a "G11 - also a bit of G12 - http://www.molsoft.com/icm_browser.html. (Companies article, Molsoft, was G11 on January 11, 2007)" Your comment in response was "As reviewing administrator: I think the article not exclusively promotional -- speedy declined . & there's a reference. Consider a merge with Molsoft.." Perhaps you can take a closer look. There is no indication if the reference is about the software or if it is solely about about Internal Coordinate Mechanics. I tend to actually look at an article, look at is links and look at it's history before making CSD type noms. This article says zero about the software other than what is on the Molsoft websites download page. Special:Contributions/Eugeneraush shows it was probably a cut and paste from the website, perhaps by someone who worked for Molsoft at the time. The footnote/ref was added later when someone was trying to clean up the article so it would appear less "blatant". External links both go to Molsoft. Thanks! Soundvisions1 ( talk) 06:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Somehow I missed the fictional part. My apologies...
ttonyb1 ( talk) 00:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I just nominated Oxford International Film Festival for deletion, if you'd like to weigh in. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 01:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI, I've unblocked 71.175.247.168 after seeing it in Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely-blocked IPs. I gathered you did not mean to block indefinitely. – xeno ( talk) 20:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Hiya! When/if you have a moment, can you have a look at this discussion on my talk, please? I userfied the article for an editor and s/he has worked hard to improve it. My issue with restoring is I'm not sure he meets the notability guidelines even with extra sourcing. It was deleted at AfD and I was the closing admin. My thoughts had been toward DRV but the user is understandably hesitant to do so. I said I'd ask your thoughts since you may be able to weigh in re: holdings of the subject's books. I'm not sure he's notable -- don't think he isn't for sure but I want to avoid this being immediately re-deleted (as either a G4 even though it isn't or another AfD that might snow). Thoughts/ StarM 01:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
If you have opinions about the proposed arbitration, please consider posting them to the WP:RFAR page. The Committee has seemed reluctant to accept cases. I believe they can be swayed by thoughtful opinions. Jehochman Talk 04:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
So, apparently, I declined a speedy because this article asserted notability, and then tagged the article because it did not assert notability. So much for editing on a Friday afternoon. In any event, thanks for the catch. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
:That article is a hoax. I put it up for speedy as such. And posted it to ANI.
ChildofMidnight (
talk) 20:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC) I stand corrected. It's apparently legitimate.
ChildofMidnight (
talk)
20:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai ( talk) 16:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Just curious what you meant by this edit? Nyttend ( talk) 21:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Did you put two votes in at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_A._Hicks one of which belongs in another AfD discussion? See this diff]. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 21:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi DGG, In light of your well-articulated comments with regard to List of alleged UFO-related entities I thought you might like to know that several related categories are also up for deletion (nominated by the same editor). Cgingold ( talk) 14:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting me at my successful Rfa! Hope to work more with you in the future!-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
An editor is trying to force other editors to identify themselves on a BIO talkpage.
Talk:Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
Thanks
LoveMonkey (
talk)
21:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks DGG it is most appreciated. LoveMonkey ( talk) 01:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The deletion of that article is being discussed, and I appreciate your input. And be sure to notify all who voted "keep" or "merge" about it too. FMAFan1990 ( talk) 01:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Would you perhaps have some sources to suggest or insights to offer in regards to the List of dodgeball variations article and its AfD? I haven't had a chance to add to the article yet, but I included mention of the best sources I could find at the AfD. Gracias as always. The Dodgeball article is pretty bad too. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 08:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shirley the Loon. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle ( talk) 10:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Per discussion at the November 16 New York City meetup, bylaws will be decided on-wiki with a deadline of 2 weeks to complete the process. Please read the proposed bylaws, and comment on them before the process ends on December 1. Thanks for participating!-- Pharos ( talk) 22:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I only checked Amazon, and after seeing that Taubes had some book on diet stuff, I didn't bother looking anywhere else. Mea culpa. Pcap ping 12:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Could you have a look at One Team, One Dream and the related AfD? The article's creator (who appears to be the book's author) is trying to meet our guidelines and have an article included. They'e added some media coverage, but I don't know if it's enough. Thanks as always. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 05:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi DGC,
Tmtoulouse cited Patrick Wanis yesterday as spam or for speedy deletion and i immediately responded by spending five hours including external links, sources and citations to improve the article so that it did not appear as blatant advertising. As soon as i finished writing and adding all of the information, you deleted the entire page/article before there was any discussion to keep or delete. I did not know where to write "hangon" or how to do this. Can you please assist me? What is required to get the Wanis page back up (restored) and who makes that decision. If you google, "patrick wanis" you will see that he is a notable person. You can even check this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescent_sexuality_in_the_United_States to see that he is cited elsewhere in Wikipedia and that page cites a newspaper article quoting Wanis. Also, Wanis' page has been up since 2006 and now, that i went to update it, add sources and expand upon it, my work and the page have been deleted. He is now a PhD and i did not even have a chance to include that... Please advise.. Thanks, Chris CVBPW ( talk) 06:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
A shout-out is what I call an article whose content is basically "HI, EVERYONE AT SCHOOL (X)" or "MY BEST FRIEND IS (Y)"... where the goal is to just get someone's name mentioned in Wikipedia.
I don't bother memorizing all the CSD codes. I know the reasons that are attached to those codes, and I use rationales that should be comprehensible to the people who created the articles in the first place. DS ( talk) 17:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I know that we sometimes disagree on whether an article should be kept or deleted, and even when we disagree, I always respect your opinion. 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 [5]. Best wishes. Mandsford ( talk) 23:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Greetings. You wrote on my Talk page:
I like your approach better. It never hurts for us all to be reminded to keep it civil, but I will not put up with threats like the other editor made. Needless to say, I appreciate that you redacted the comments that crossed the line. Best wishes. Mandsford ( talk) 17:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Please let me know as soon as Bow Tie Wearers goes to DRV, as it feels like the closing Admin completely ignored consensus. Kinda defeats the purpose of the AfD process. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi DGG was the wikipedia copyright notice always on the answers.com page? I never spotted it. Sorry about that. BigDunc Talk 15:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Found an article at AfD that looked like it could be saved from deletion. I took THIS and turned it into THIS. I was still in process of expanding the article when the synopsis section got tagged as a copyvio. Per instructuion of the tag, and wishing to address the concern, I created a temp page and corrected the synopsis, basing the rewrite upon the official website and other sources, but not copying them. How do I getthe copyvio tage removed, since it has been addresed? I hate the thought that even seeing that might color an editor's coomments at the AfD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, sorry about that, I meant to put the URL in and then had to do something else. I can't seem to find the article online though. I've wikified it a bit, but the article needs serious clean up. -- Bethan 182 ( talk) 15:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello David, I read at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/Resources that you had an access to ODNB and you could provide articles. I recently stumbled accross William II's bio which was available for free through their 'lives of the Week' service, and I now plan to rewrite the norman kings' articles on the french wikipedia. Could you get me William I, Henry I and Stephen articles ? Thanks a lot in advance ! PurpleHz ( talk) 22:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC) PS : my mail is purplehz at gmail.com.
On the issue of Fraternities, I would tend to think the "Alpha" or first chapter of a fraternity or sorority Organization would hold a right to have a wiki page dedicated to it, as typically the "Alpha" or first chapter holds the most information on the fraternity/sorority's creation and history. -- Tomblights00 ( talk) 21:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)tombstone00-- Tomblights00 ( talk) 21:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I added some references to Woodhead Publishing Limited and removed the copyvio text. -- Eastmain ( talk) 22:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
This is beyond my pay grade. The individual appears notable but this new article is a mess, and I think that it requires someone with your experience to look at it. It speaks for itself. DENNIS BROWN ( T) ( C) 01:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know. I'll leave a comment at his talk page in a bit. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps its time we opened an ANI report about his constant tagging of acceptable new articles? Count Blofeld 10:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Crngrob with just 33 people looks like a lot of encyclopedic information could be written about it. Have a good sleep! Count Blofeld 11:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
David (or others watching), when you wake up can you possibly look to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of town tramway systems in Asia? I'd already voted before I realised it was one in a series of dubious noms. It's a universal keep so far, just like the others. StarM 16:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
heh I was aware of events but as author of one of the targeted articles didn't feel it was right to step in. Geni 18:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure. He seems to have gone to doing AV work since the block expired. However, a lot of his reverts are actually restoring vandalism or other bad edits. I think I will restore the block. Daniel Case ( talk) 22:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I'll try to slow it down a little. As for that particular article, I didn't think that every professor was notable enough for Wikipedia. Obviously, if there was something distinguishing that they were involved with, or were of particular importance to the school, then they would be notable enough. However, at the time I tagged the article, it simply stated that she was a professor at M.I.T. and was in a certain department. I didn't think this merited having her own article. If you could get back to me about this I would appreciate it. TheXenocide ( talk) 01:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that ScienceApologist, who was the nom for List of alleged UFO-related entities had just changed it to a redirect. I reverted back and left a message on the talk page and his talk page politely requesting that a discussion be held before a move this bold. Just wanted to make sure you were aware, after the AFD which you were active in. DENNIS BROWN ( T) ( C) 00:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Due to the constant disruption of List of alleged UFO-related entities , I have entered a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_user_ScienceApologist DENNIS BROWN ( T) ( C) 00:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Done. I doubt there's anything even you can do for that article, but you're welcome to go for it. It's a student essay. As always interested to see your input. StarM 13:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello David, it has been awhile since I have gotten you involved in anything. Can you do me a favor and look at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Windman discussion. It seems like an unusual number of new users, only contributions are to this discussion, involved. With regards to the article staying or not, always believed it should be left up to consensus. In this case, I believe justice may be peaking under her blindfold. Thanks for your help. ShoesssS Talk 21:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Greetings, DGG! Another editor and I have a disagreement Tiger kidnapping, and whether or not it should be moved to Wiktionary. It's a fairly short article and talk page, would you have the time to look it over and offer your opinion?-- otherl left No, really, other way . . . 22:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A Nobody My talk 02:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
No matter your !vote at my RfA (and not trying to sway it any, I promise), I wanted to thank you for the little kick in the butt you gave me. I was motivated to go back and copyedit both C. M. Eddy, Jr. and Humphrey Kynaston, almost doubling the size of each. I have been so caught up with the NP patrolling that it had been a while since I had looked back at some of the articles I had written (some as far back as 2 years ago). I plan on working on quite a few of them in the near future. Again, however my RfA goes, thanks for the nudge... - Adolphus79 ( talk) 05:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi David, sorry to bother you with this, and if it isn't something you want to involve yourself in I completely accept that and, for whatever the reason, understand. I noticed the following post on another user's talk page [6] and I'm concerned about what seems to be an aggresive and antagonistic (uncivil?) attempt at intimidation to obstruct an editor from participating and offering their opinion in AfDs. The post includes accusations, but no evidence of improper action. When I looked into one of the AfDs I couldn't find any disruptive posts (except, ironically, from others). While I haven't always agreed with your conclusions or votes at AfD, I respect you as a fair and reasonable arbiter, so that's why I'm asking. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 17:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I have cut the section on student achievements as you suggested for Jock McKeen. Do you have further recommendations for this article, or for Bennet Wong or Haven Institute? I appreciate your help. William Meyer ( talk) 22:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I found your explanation for keeping this article [7]constructive and persuasive. I have taken the liberty of copying your comment to the article talkpage because i think other editors clearly need concrete constructive suggestions for how to research and improve the article. If you think what I did was inappropriate, my apologies and do what you wish, but I hope you will consider developing your comment into more practical guidance for other editors who may be willing to work on the article in earnest. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
You strike me as a methodical editor - for a while, Scientific research in Canada has sat on my watchlist - I look at it and look at it and then my eyes hurt and I turn away. Any suggestions? sub-articles? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 14:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Without waiting for any consensus on the talk page or discussion he has AGAIN undone all the changes I made, and removed sourced material. Can this page please be locked to avoid 3R, and can you please talk to this guy so I don't need to have him banned. He's clearly just waited to see if he can get away with it, noticed I'm still watching the page, and mass revised it. His comments on the talk page are initially empty, then he makes some more and without waiting for a reply immedietely undoes everything! JJJ999 ( talk) 14:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if you're watching it already, but if not would you (and this extends to the other regular readers of this page) be willing to keep a second pair of eyes on Articles for deletion/July 29 in rail transport? Not only is this showing all the signs of a discussion that's about to degenerate into a flamewar (although at least the SPAs have not yet started appearing), but whatever decision is reached here is likely to be pointed at as a precedent for deleting/keeping whole swathes of similar "this day in history" type pages. As someone who's written quite a lot of railway-history material that would be tangentially affected by this particular test case (although I'm not a member of WP:TRAINS, and didn't know these pages existed until the AFD), any defense I make of the existing setup is open to accusations of bias.
I appreciate that the last time a similar case came up, at
Articles for deletion/619 in Ireland, I was arguing for deletion, but that was because in that case the articles seemed to me to be better suited to a "this decade in…" format, and that alternative doesn't apply here. –
iride
scent
16:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Note to anyone concerned: this is not
canvassing – DGG has already participated in the AFD debate in question.
Hello! I have set up Wikipedia:Editor review/A Nobody should you wish to comment. Please note that I am notifying a handful of experienced editors who are familiar with me as I am particularly interested in anything they have to add. If you do not wish to comment, that is fine too. All the best! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 21:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The page should not be deleted on the terms of A7 (group) due to the following criteria: 1. The organization is notable as it is not a part of chain or franchise (Notable) 2. The organization is cited to show unusual business practices (worthy of being noted). 3. The article uses credible references and has appropriate links to verify information such as newspaper articles. Primary sources and secondary sources are listed. 4. The article follows a neutral point of view without advertising.
I am new to wiki, and need some instructions (if possible) to know how to recreate it. Thank you. -- Tomblights00 ( talk) 21:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Tombstone00-- Tomblights00 ( talk) 21:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I have requested a copy of the original from an adminstrator -- Tomblights00 ( talk) 21:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)tombstone00-- Tomblights00 ( talk) 21:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I contest your argument that the article on both arguments of "guise of advertisement" and also "defamation". First, the article is posted with a neutral point of view required by Wikipedia. The article give facts without any opinions. References are clearly posted. Secondly, i contest the article is defamatory. I point to the fact that your contention of the article being irrevelant on point #1 and point #2 contradict itself. If the article was "in guise of advertisment" however point #2 is "defamation" is contradictory. Again, the article is written from a neutral point of view, without bias. -- Tomblights00 ( talk) 08:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)tombstone00-- Tomblights00 ( talk) 08:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
JClemens' RfA Thanks | ||
Thank you for participating in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 77 supporting and 2 opposing. Regardless of your position, I thank you for the time you took to examine my record and formulate your response. Jclemens ( talk) 02:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC) |
I put SierraSil up for speedy or prod deletion, although it does have some mentions in sources (though the news ones are mainly press releases or industry publications of believers in such things.) I was not sure about the speedy, though the tone was quite advertisingy. Now the creator has messaged me saying I should have helped him write a non-advertisment version. I was wondering if you would give me your opinion on whether the subject's notable etc. enough for an article; would the subject pass AfD for instance in your opinion? Sticky Parkin 16:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
In the afd discussion you suggested changing the name of Novelty theory. I suggest changing it to Timewave zero, which is currently a redirect to Novelty theory. The reason for this choice is that Timewave zero seems to be a much more common name for this stuff than Novelty theory, and somewhat more common than Time wave zero. As an admin, would you be able to make the move, or is there some process that should be gone though? Cardamon ( talk) 07:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I see you've suggested a few merges over at SASTRA University. Please provide a rationale for these here as per WP:MM. Thank You! (talk) raghuvansh (contribs) 21:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)