Oct08,
Nov08,
Dec08,
Jan09, ... ,
Mar09,
Apr09 ,.. ,
Jun09,
Jul09,
Aug09,
Sep09,
Yes, thanks for the comment. I hadn't kept up on the policy and have duly noted it. Cheers, Nja 247 17:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG. Per the stipulations at WP:CANVASSING, I've pinged your talk page to "appropriately canvass" you wrt the deletion discussion currently taking place at " WP:Articles for deletion/Home and family blog." (Note that I've also pinged the talkpages of all of your fellow participants at last years deletion discussion at " WP:Articles for deletion/List of blogs," to ensure that my notifications are to are small number of wiki-contributors that have been neutrally selected.) I hope you'll consider taking part in our discussion. Thanks. ↜Just me, here, now … 07:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, the article doesn't even assert notability at the moment, and therefore would probably have been tagged by someone else as A7. A cursory search revealed very little to establish independent botability, but I could be wrong with that. Might you want to put forward a few sources? - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 07:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm honestly disappointed by your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broda Otto Barnes. For whatever reason, I thought you had more respect for me than that. In the past, I think we've disagreed about the bar for notability without stooping to accuse the other of nefarious motives or tactics. MastCell Talk 05:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG, can you take a look at my reply to you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solid-state ionics? I suspect I have taken a wrong turning here but am not quite sure what to do. Do you think I should withdraw the AfD and deal with it myself? SpinningSpark 23:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG. Here's an interesting case. Dai Hong Dan is clearly a candidate for deletion as WP:ONEVENT (see all-date Google news archive search—not perfect, but gives you an idea). But it seems that individual ships that were the objects of piracy are somewhat like episodes in a serial. Any thoughts on how to deal with them? Bongo matic 15:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Last December you wrote on WP:AFD:
Do you know any tech savy editors who would be able to reinvent the wheel and create a bot which contacts the creator of an article when it is put up for Afd? I say "reinvent the wheel" because one editor already created this bot and had it approved already:
Ikip ( talk) 07:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
As a member of the Bilateral relations task force, you maybe interested in this new page: Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion Ikip ( talk) 17:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
That particular game said it was an online game, so it qualified or A7. I've seen products A7'd without question before. Bleah, you're right tho. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 19:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Dottydotdot/confirmsignup
can non-admin users vote too? -- Abce2| How dy! 21:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes! Thanks! Abce2| How dy! 21:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
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)
21:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I was asked to participate in the AfD of "Home and family blog". I looked up the relevant guidelines, and have posted them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home and family blog for your consideration. The Transhumanist 22:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG,
Thank you so much for the revisions and edits of the Onyx Pharmaceuticals page! I really appreciate you taking the time to help me out with article. I removed the dead links on analyst coverage and instead linked to Onyx's Yahoo!Finance Analyst Coverage page. In addition, I added Onyx's Hoover's profile page under notability.
When you have a chance to look over again, can you let me know if it looks like it is ready to be posted?
Thanks again for your help! - EG
EGagnon7224 (
talk)
13:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello David:
It has been awhile since we talked. Moreover, of course, my first contact is to ask a favor. Can you copy a deleted AFD article, Tuan Nguyen to my subpage? I think I may be able to resurrect with a little TLC. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 17:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear DGG, I'm having a bit of a disagreement with an editor regarding WP:PROF. Do you care to weigh in? And please do tell me if I interpret those guidelines incorrectly--I do sometimes find it difficult to decide on notability; still, I think I'm within policy in this discussion. Thanks for your time! Drmies ( talk) 21:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
DGG, how's your Spanish (or Hungarian)? It can't be worse than mine! Somehow I find this an inviting nut to crack, and suspect that you may as well. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Sir. You are indeed a Good Egg ((c) Mastcell). Perhaps your input will inspire a passing Hungarian or Colombian to take an interest and -- gasp of horror -- visit a library, with books 'n' stuff, in order to bring in other aspects of the relationship, complete with "RS". -- Hoary ( talk) 06:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I've completely rewritten and expanded the Mibbit article. Could you have a look at it? Tothwolf ( talk) 11:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Michaud Point should be Point Michaud which should the proper title -- Cherry1000 ( talk) 17:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
.. I really don't think adding "Canadian philosophers, known as academics or authors" improves this list at all. It's like saying "here's a list, but it's not accurate" Many of the people on the list were put there as psychologists (when is was a list of Montreal psychologists & philosophers), several are authors with no connection at all to Philosophy. The entire list needs to be rewritten or thrown out. "Category: Canadian Philosophers" [2] is a longer and slightly more accurate list, although many of the same false positives are there. Hairhorn ( talk) 03:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I would be grateful if you would re-examine the Effectrode article again and see if it now satisfies Wikipedia's requirements.
Thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogolplex ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I received a message on my talk page about the SCFX speedy deletion notice at 1:18, and at 2:41 it was deleted. I request the article be restored so I can properly evaluate and respond to the notice. Robert K S ( talk) 18:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I assume this was a bad edit on your part? (I figure the best course is to bring it up to you rather than doing something about it). Cheers, tedder ( talk) 12:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
RE: this. This is a new change to me. Do you know where the discussion for this took place? If not I'll poke around. I have to admit, since my job got busier and busier, I have less and less time to focus on Wikipeia, which is a shame, because I could totally do this all day for money and be ecstatic. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou for you comments. I've made further ammendments in line with your suggestions and would be grateful if you would take another look to see if they now satisfy Wikipedia requirements. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogolplex ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from that article. It was added by the article's author and therefore should not be removed without his permission. – Pee Jay 16:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI. rootology ( C)( T) 04:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
You deleted Dr. Amit Abraham per an AfD and the article is back. Given the history involved, I suspect that User:Dr lisy may be a sockpuppet. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 05:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I yanked a kind of touchy reply because it was only going to derail things, but could you please avoid comparing bit-twiddling on Wikipedia to murdering people? I realize your intent wasn't to inflame or offend, but it's not possible to respond to the argument made by that analogy without further handling a distasteful, emotionally-charged subject in an inappropriate venue. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire - past ops) 11:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
We can discuss it here. I continue to support my basic analogy, though it isn't exact in some respects. Read it again: i was referring not to participation of any person or any group, but characterising the overall process at AfD as being a lynch mob. My reference was to the method of !voting, whereby consensus is judged from the opinions of the people who choose to show up for the discussion. In other words, one picks what case one wants, and joins the jury. The first reason it isn't exact, is that it applies to both sides of the issue. those who wish to comment on a particular case do so and consensus is j. This is perfectly reasonable if it's a matter of comments The second reason it isn't exact is that it also applies to the judge, the closing administrator. So it's worse than a lynch mob,so bad that I know of no human process that works that way in the RW. The notoriously most fickle jury system was the Athenian jury, and it had advantages over ours: though it contained only volunteers, which case you sat on was a matter of chance, and it had much wider participation. It has not escaped my attention that we have similar processes elsewhere--I think RfA has frequently seen that comparison. I'd apply it with various degrees of closeness to RfC also, and to the admin boards, and arbitration enforcement, and Speedy delete.
I'm not here to juggle bits. If I wanted to play computer games, I prefer game worlds (or programming environments) with fixed rules within which to maneuver. DGG ( talk) 18:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
You deleted "Buzz Off Insect Shield" today with the code G11. Can you tell me what areas need to be edited to make the article ambiguous and acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ownzered ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
DGG, here's something that should appeal to the discerning librarian: ISBN 9994110101. Worldcat has two entries for it. A bit more digging around and I tentatively conclude that this book has an Armenian title -- of course in Armenian script, which is not supplied directly in any of the sources I've seen but clearly raises transliteration conundrums. It also has a Japanese title (perhaps largely decorative) and an English title (probably only decorative, or to help the harried, non-Armenian, non-Japanese, scriptly-challenged librarian. One of the two Worldcat entries starts to explain the relative amounts of Armenian and Japanese, but does so in cryptic German librarian-speak. Surely you'll find this irresistible.... Hoary ( talk) 00:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Good work Sir! I'd never heard of Wendebuch but the notion is very familiar to me; it's common for journals put out by Japanese institutions to have contributions in horizontal script (whether western or Japanese so written) starting at what the western reader would take to be the front, and contributions in vertical Japanese script starting from the "back". (This only half resembles the tête-bêche of old "Ace Doubles" paperbacks.) For several reasons, I hesitate to ask the LC for more info, and I wouldn't suggest that you did so either; if I did want to pursue this, I'd ask the Japan–Armenia Friendship Association, which I imagine would be happy to be of assistance here. ¶ I do like the idea of a book in Armenian and Japanese. "My" library has ISBN 80-85909-25-1 , a superb book in an improbable congeries of languages; and somewhere (I've mislaid it) in my own "library" is a little photo book in parallel Lithuanian and Italian. -- Hoary ( talk) 03:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually "fan junk" = unreferenced, poorly written material which is not verified with little relevance to the real world and is only understood by fans who know or care about the characters. PLease STOP making judgements about everybody and assuming I nominated the article because I didn't like it. If you can't see the glaringly obvious issues the "article" has aside from subject matter then I'm very sorry, Dr. Blofeld White cat 08:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The Human Sexuality Barnstar | ||
message Pluginaiden ( talk) 10:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC) |
For your relentless works in the homosexual community.
Hi DGG
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia Gray, you wrote that "for a short story writer, notability typically comes through inclusion in anthologies."
I have noticed that you have opined on several occasions about topic-specific notability indicia, often totally different from (not necessarily more or less inclusive than) the actual guidelines. Given that you have obviously put a lot of thought into the matter, I think many people would find it valuable if you kept a cheat-sheet of your shortcuts for everyone.
Regards, Bongo matic 03:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there a WP policy which states as you say "permanent diplomatic missions in all major countries are notable". LibStar ( talk) 13:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
OK thanks. LibStar ( talk) 00:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw this AfD, which caught my interest, then got side-tracked into mini-bios of Irish participants in the Colombian wars of independence: James Towers English, James Rooke, William Aylmer and Francisco Burdett O'Connor, then further side-tracked to Mariano Montilla and Pedro Antonio Olañeta. John Devereux (con artist) and Francisco Tomás Morales are obvious gaping holes, and I suppose others will appear. But to go back to the AfD, now in day 6, any comments? Aymatth2 ( talk) 23:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
"not just retail; business articles in general. Our weakest area." Besides country music of course. Hint hint. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 00:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
You might be interested in this -- surely as a librarian even if editing the wikipedia page itself doesn't seem necessary. regards, Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, because of a discussion that I am now engaged in, I would appreciate it if you could attend to the old user page I moved out of sight, thanks. Mish ( talk) 21:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG
This is a request to you as a conscientious editor who thinks about not only whether content should be included, but where. I would appreciate your views of the issue discussed at Talk:Buddha Jumps Over the Wall#Due weight to shark finning. My views are stated there in (probably more than) full.
Thanks, Bongo matic 05:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I replied at my talk page. Regards, – Juliancolton | Talk 02:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC). Ditto. See my modified statement above & my comment on your talk p. You did not do this right, but it isn't worth the trouble to follow it up; there are more important things to be doing. DGG ( talk) 02:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, DGG. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#John_R._Talbott. Thank you.} Toddst1 ( talk) 07:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Some of the posts over at the AfD for Johnston are rather scary. It seems that people don't understand notability, or even read the one links that they provide. The one event says that if its a really big event, even minor figures can be notable from it. Then someone put forth an idea that the rest of his life isn't notable so it shouldn't be mentioned. Bah, do they not realize that encyclopedias don't have only "notable" information, or most pages would be empty? The fact that so many people have heard about him and there being over 8 months of coverage, scandal, interviews and the rest makes it all rather mind boggling. Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Article_rescue_contest_2#Judges, if you are interested. Thanks! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 16:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that I don't include you in this. Black Kite 23:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75 ½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk |
Told you it was a G11. :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The article doesn't say.
I'm interested, because I need to explain the benefits in the guideline on outlines I'm writing. (Outlines are a type of tree structure).
I've also asked the question at various reference desks, and these threads may help to jump start your brain on this question. :)
What benefits have you noticed?
How are Wikipedia's outlines useful to you?
I look forward to your answers on my talk page.
The Transhumanist 04:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
One nom was a troll nom, and the other was speedy closed only a couple days after a previous one. Those two shouldn't count, in my opinion. And if it's so notable, where the heck are the sources? That's the big one for me. I see six secondary sources (hardly any of which seem to mention it in more than passing) and nearly twice as many primary ones. Everyone keeps saying it's notable, so why aren't they proving it?! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you please undelete Mechademia so that I can use the original text and some reviews I've unearthed to make a better article? -- Malkinann ( talk) 02:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see this notice at WP:BLPN; you may wish to comment there. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Britain is not the same area as British Isles. This article was moved some months ago to Military history of the peoples of the British Isles, and wrongly moved imo. And for the wrong reasons too by user Setanta747. purple ( talk) 19:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Yo, is there chance that the article you left on this AfD was supposed to be for another AfD? I may be totally off, just checking. OlYeller Talktome 15:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I've emailed you back.-- Jklein212 ( talk) 19:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
You said very, but probably meant "every". It changes the meaning of your statement, so I thought it was worth pointing out. Cheers, tedder ( talk) 04:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see Talk:English_Travellers#Source -- PBS ( talk) 11:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Please don't be so credulous. Part of your job, too, as a Wikipedia editor, is to look for good refs. Had you done so, no doubt you would have concurred with the prodder that this is a hoax. Perhaps now you could do the appropriate thing, viz., look for sources, and then either add them if you find them, or, if you find none, nominate this and CMA Group for afd. Thanks. 160.39.213.97 ( talk) 12:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you feeling less weak, now? ☺ Uncle G ( talk) 10:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
removed image because it broke the syntax here and made some other messages unreadable, but it's in respect to the successful RfA of ' Flying[[User talk:FlyingToaster|
As it happens, this whole revision did begin as a discussion on WP:VPP. If you want to attract more attention, feel free to post a notice about the ongoing discussion there, or on other noticeboards where canvassing for this sort of thing would be appropriate. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't use email, please post in an appropriate manner messages on my talk page. LibStar ( talk) 03:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I see that you have not yet been informed of this. Please throw in your hat there, if you'd like. 06:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I have a bit of context loss on this one: [6] - what final version and draft are you referring to? 00:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear DGG, I would appreciate your advice regarding the handling of an edit war continued by an anonymous user in the article sipgate. The user continues to add/revert material that is unmistakenly against WP policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. Would you please review this? The article (about a company) itself has problems with notability in fact. Kbrose ( talk) 22:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
There's no such a thing as Chilean resistance. That term was made up by a ramdom user. Please do a quick search on google to see that there's no connection whatsoever, between the term and the oppposition to Pinochet's government/dictatorship. Likeminas ( talk) 18:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you take another look at this one? It was redirected once to coupon by another editor before the user drugzoo added everything back to the article including its one and only reference drugzoo.com at which time I tagged it as promotional only. If nothing else it is a gigantic coatrack on which to hang the link to his or her website. Thank you. Wperdue ( talk) 04:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue
Telling editors that they should write an article on a subject other than the one that currently exists is not a particulary helpful opinion. If you want to write an article on Our Lady of Darkness that incorporates a mention of Megapolisomancy, go right ahead. I'm sure that you would do a fine job of it; but that's not really a valid defense of the article I nominated for deletion, and it doesn't address the reasons for deleting the specific article. Let's not allow differences of perspective to override the existing policies and guidelines, no matter how much you might disagree with them. If you want to dispute them, there are other forums, Deor ( talk) 03:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't read it. But the Amazon official review says: "For an accomplished pro like Leiber, a sorry performance." I like Pramoedya Ananta Toer's Quartet, and I think I saw Salman Rushdie and Tom Robbins have new books out. I don't read as many books as I used to since I started working on Wikipedia. Did you finish Atlas Shrugged already? I guess you just couldn't put it down. :) Have a great weekend David. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 05:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC) I guess I need to come up with something sci-fi and fantasy related though... Have you seen the latest Star Trek film? It's supposed to be good. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 05:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
We have been deleted based on Lack of Notability. Please take a look at our situation and if you have any thoughts we welcome your input. NOTICE: Actions have also been made against some of the affilaites listed as references.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Full_Armor_of_God_Broadcast
TY! Ivanhoe610fa ( talk) 14:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe...
I was experiencing mental block on the article draft for "outline" and on the outline guideline draft. And this was holding the whole project back. Without these (which are intended to explain the type of lists known as outlines in detail), the danger is higher that a controversy could go the wrong way.
I requested help on them, but there was none forthcoming.
So I went ahead and started us on the next phase of operations without those 2 pages...
Our AWB'ers and I have placed about 1600 notices all over Wikipedia. And the plan is to place several thousand more.
This generated only one complaint, but it was a very vocal one, and attracted a few other detractors who seemed unfamiliar with the concept of hierarchical outlines and their benefits. However, just as many or more editors came to the defense of the OOK, and there was no consensus formed. But, dab is still trying to rally opposition to outlines at the Village Pump. See below...
It appears that the banner placed on the talk page of the Outline of Switzerland caught the attention of an editor named Dbachmann who posted a rather forceful message on my talk page, another on WT:WPOOK, another at WP:VPP, and still another at WP:AN!
He went well out of his way to use negative hype to cause a stir.
It appears that Mr. Bachmann doesn't understand the nature of hierarchical outlines and their applications. And though he implied that he has never seen an OOK outline before, he was involved with a discussion on these when they were called "lists of basic topics".
His primary argument is that outlines are content forks of articles, and violate WP:CFORK.
But "topic lists", of which outlines are a type, have been around for almost as long as Wikipedia, and fall under the WP:LISTS and WP:STAND guidelines. They aren't intended as forks, as they are lists, bringing the benefits of lists to the corresponding subjects, such as grouping and navigation.
Someone suggested an MfD, but lists are articles, and are within the jurisdiction of AfD. Only the portal page, which merely lists the outline articles, falls within the scope of the MfD department.
The administrator's noticeboard was considered the wrong venue for the discussion, and the discussion was closed.
But Dab's discussion at the Village Pump is still active. Hopefully level heads will prevail there too.
Am I disheartened or deterred? Hell no. I say "full steam ahead!"
But we really need to finish the article draft and the guideline. Otherwise there will continue to be confusion.
Over the next week or two, we'll be posting another 1600 or so notices. It's a good thing we didn't send out 10,000 of them all at once. :)
The Transhumanist 23:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
On the CSD RFC, you said "The only reason I do not challenge more is the need to keep good relations with my fellow admins. I trust most admins to use discretion most of the time. I trust nobody among us to use it right all the time.". I'm not the most frequent CSD closer, but I'ld like to invite you to challenge me on every CSD close you have doubts about. For AfD, I will often send you to DRV, but with CSD's, I'm more likely to undo my deletion and (if needed) send it to AfD instead. I don't always agree with you, but I don't think that your usually well-reasoned opinion will cause any friction. If it does anyway, I'll try to politely withdraw this invitation :-) Fram ( talk) 13:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I have replied to your e-mail with an explanation. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 20:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
EC at the MfD? Send diff? I'll check. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah. Found it. Go ahead and switch our comments, since we were both responding to Dc. Keep yours indented and outdent mine. Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Within the past month or so, you appear to have commented on at least one AN/I, RS/N, or BLP/N thread involving the use of the term "Saint Pancake" in the Rachel Corrie article. As of May 24th, 2009, an RfC has been open at Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Request_for_Comments_on_the_inclusion_of_Saint_Pancake for over a week. As editors who have previously commented on at least one aspect of the dispute, your further participation is welcome and encouraged. Jclemens ( talk) 23:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, the current notices, and the planned ones, concern the development of existing outlines. For example, notices of work that needs to be done to them, and notices to recruit editors to help out on them.
The Transhumanist 01:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: Another related thread has popped up at WP:VPR#OoK's expediency. --TT 04:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey David. I was wondering if you would be willing to reconsider your delete vote in the case of Connie Bea Hope? At the worst I think a merge (which I have no inclination to support) to the tv station WKRG would seem a better route. I've been finding more sources and putting more pieces of the puzzle together as far as the show and its history go. For example I'm working on a source that includes the show as an early favorite in the channel's history. I think this biography is well worth including, even though it's notability is regional rather than national or international. Thanks for your kind consideration. Oh and I'm working on an article on the program itself now too Woman's World (tv) so we'll see what comes of that. Perhaps a merger may be in order down the road. But the show has had notable guests, so I'm going to see what comes of it. And I also found a source with an archival tape of the show. Thanks for your kind consideration. How was the new Star Trek movie? Have fun. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 22:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bug you, hoping you're still at the wheel. I investigated the above since it was listed at WP:SCV, and found it a verbatim copy of wikibin - which is fine since it's GFDL-licensed. However, given the name of the site, I wonder whether the wikibin article isn't itself a copy of the wikipedia article deleted through this AfD, which would make the article a G4 case. Would you mind having a quick glance? Thanks. MLauba ( talk) 21:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Input on the OOK threads at the Village Pump has died down (at both WP:VPP and WP:VPR), and there is currently no consensus on either.
For the number of notices we posted (over a thousand) the number of complaints we received (the two VP threads mentioned above) was quite low.
Considering most of the outlines are orphans, they get pretty good use.
Note that people who are happy with articles on Wikipedia generally don't say anything, so I simply interpret it as positive feedback.
Using Traffic, I compare the traffic of articles, their corresponding outlines, and their corresponding portals from time to time.
Outlines are starting to catch up to portals. Though the main portals, which are included in a navbar menu at the top of most portals are still way ahead of their outline counterparts.
Both outlines and portals are way behind the articles on the same subjects. Articles usually have 20 to 30 times the traffic.
Keep in mind that most outlines are orphans, with the primary link to them being Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge.
Traffic should improve once we include links on the corresponding subject pages, including the main subject as well as subjects that correspond to subheadings (e.g., History of x, and in the case of countries: Geography of x, Demographics of x, Culture of x, etc.)
I'm convinced the traffic of outlines will overtake portals once we've link-integrated them into the encyclopedia. And since outlines serve as tables of contents for each subject, it seems most fitting to place links to them in the form of hatnotes at the top of each subject's main articles (and the sub-subjects mentioned in the paragraph directly above).
By the way, there's another traffic counter called Wikirank, but I haven't tested it out much yet, but will do so in the coming weeks.
I'd personally take "published numerous books globally" as an assertion of importance. Just my 0.02$ though :) -- MLauba ( talk) 09:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the heads up, and I agree with your change.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Once the traffic of outlines has overtaken portals, it will be time to replace portals on the Main Page, even if we need to spearhead a new main page redesign! This isn't a far-fetched idea. I was the one who jumpstarted and led the project responsible for the current main page design (until it hit critical mass and attracted other leaders), and I was also the most active editor on that project. I even created the WP:CBB on the Community Portal to promote the main page election. The second time around should be easier.
Targetting the Main Page is a few months off.
Right now, we need to continue posting notices and start link-integrating the OOK into the encyclopedia.
I have a whole slew of AWB tasks to assign. I hope you are ready. :)
WP:WPOOK needs members. Tell all your friends about the OOK, and get them to join.
The Transhumanist 02:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Created a stub; but is this really the most prestigious award in that noble profession? -- Orange Mike | Talk 14:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Since you commented in the Great Clay Belt deletion review, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Maury Markowitz and redirect deletions. Feel free to ignore or remove this if you're not. -- NE2 13:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
"The article has plenty of room for expansion." Expansion from what sources? Urban Dictionary? Encyclopedia Dramatica? Message boards? Seriously, you'd keep an article on my left big toenail, wouldn't you? :-P Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Replied on my talk. EyeSerene talk 16:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello I don't care to contradict you, but Law enforcement in The Gambia was deleted for exactly this reason, a {{ db-empty}} and looking over your contributions, I don't think that you got all of the ones that I tagged; others may have been deleted as well. If you need to respond, please do so on my talk. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
(from my message to Kintetsubuffalo)" The series of articles that you have written Law enforcement in Benin (etc) are ll being nominated by another editor as speedy deletion for lack of content-- As reviewing admin, I think they do not quite meet the conditions for speedy deletion, but they really are not adequate as they are, so I have changed them to proposed deletion, giving you 7 days to improve them with some content and references. I suggest at the very least, date of founding and number of staff, for the various services. DGG ( talk) 04:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)"
DGG Thanks for any help you can provide so we can get ECRI Institute on Wikipedia. As a proper reference, here is a report from the Agency for Healthcare and research Quality, listing us in the Bibliography, page 56, #9 https://www.ecri.org/Documents/EPC/Cardiac_Catheterization_in_Freestanding_Clinics.pdf CK Kocherecri ( talk) 00:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is another - we are part of the World Health Organization - I'll see if I can find a reference there. See below. CK Kocherecri ( talk) 01:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC) http://www.frsoft.com/pages/InfoPage.aspx?PageID=303
Since you are aware of this deletion discussion, asking you for advice about this AfD won't be perceived as canvassing. Do you think Andy Wisne can be saved? The subject passes WP:GNG, but the voters are all voting delete because of the COI and neutrality issues. I'm willing to rewrite this article, but will it be futile? Cunard ( talk) 04:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
As you probably know, following AfD discussion the consensus was to keep and clean up Regional vocabularies of American English. This will require adding references where possible, and removing large amounts of unreferenced material. I have begun this process; your help would be greatly appreciated. Cnilep ( talk) 15:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
You are mentioned as part of the discussion at WP:ANI#User:DreamGuy and User:174.0.39.30 68.146.162.11 ( talk) 23:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I am bring this to your attention as an administrator. DreamGuy's comments to User:Granite thump are, in my opinion, way out of line in his final comments here. For his past acts DreamGuy has been placed on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and (it says) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked. I personally think he has made a huge assumption of bad faith against User:Granite thump, but I am not an administrator. I trust your judgment. Varbas ( talk) 04:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_DreamGuy_2 - See this request for clarification regarding DreamGuy «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Please, I need you to be involved. DreamGuy and MuZemike have started a complaint about me, once again, claiming that I am a sockpuppet here. This is the 2nd taime is a week. It looks like a full-out phishing expedition this time. They have also thrown the relative newbie User:Granite thump into their complaint. This is a huge assumption of bad faith. MuZemike and DreamGuy's accusations, the approval of a CheckUser, and no notification to either myself or User:Granite thump, is completely against wikipolicy (as I understand it). You are an admin. It is part of your role to enforce the rules and policy. Is there anything you can do to help control the harassment we are now be subjected to? And also, can you explain to me why the WP:AE review of DreamGuy’s behaviour was so suddenly aborted by User:KillerChihuahua, with no sanctions against DG? That was just strange. If you are not able/willing to get involved, can you point me to someone who is not afraid of DG? Varbas ( talk) 00:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG, I was wondering if you could clarify your comment at Anthony Tavera's DRV:
Overturn' Checking on iIMDB, I very strongly doubt that a young person playing these minor roles -- some as just a voice-- is actually notable; The CSI role is probably not enough to be significant--I gather he's the victim-- but it was enough to pass speedy. Dream Focus is wrong about speedy; it is done and needs to be done when there is no indication of any possible notability, which happens quite a lot--of the 5 or 10 speedies I do a day, about half are for that reason.
I was a little confused by this. You ¬voted Overturn, indicating that you do not agree with the A7 deletion. However, you argue that his roles are "not enough to be significant", as in "making a credible claim of significance", which looks like an argument in favour of speedy deletion. "pass speedy" could be interpreted two ways, at least by a {{ User en-3}} like myself. "pass" as in "qualify" or "meet" the criterion, or "bypass". On the other hand, from your comments elsewhere, I would be very surprised if you would endorse this A7. Thanks, decltype ( talk) 05:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
You were active on the talk page concerning consensus. Could you provide comments here please? Any opinion would be appreciated: [11]. Faustian ( talk) 16:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Outlines was growing so large that I split this section off as a separate page.
I look forward to your feedback and improvements.
Oct08,
Nov08,
Dec08,
Jan09, ... ,
Mar09,
Apr09 ,.. ,
Jun09,
Jul09,
Aug09,
Sep09,
Yes, thanks for the comment. I hadn't kept up on the policy and have duly noted it. Cheers, Nja 247 17:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG. Per the stipulations at WP:CANVASSING, I've pinged your talk page to "appropriately canvass" you wrt the deletion discussion currently taking place at " WP:Articles for deletion/Home and family blog." (Note that I've also pinged the talkpages of all of your fellow participants at last years deletion discussion at " WP:Articles for deletion/List of blogs," to ensure that my notifications are to are small number of wiki-contributors that have been neutrally selected.) I hope you'll consider taking part in our discussion. Thanks. ↜Just me, here, now … 07:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, the article doesn't even assert notability at the moment, and therefore would probably have been tagged by someone else as A7. A cursory search revealed very little to establish independent botability, but I could be wrong with that. Might you want to put forward a few sources? - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 07:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm honestly disappointed by your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broda Otto Barnes. For whatever reason, I thought you had more respect for me than that. In the past, I think we've disagreed about the bar for notability without stooping to accuse the other of nefarious motives or tactics. MastCell Talk 05:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG, can you take a look at my reply to you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solid-state ionics? I suspect I have taken a wrong turning here but am not quite sure what to do. Do you think I should withdraw the AfD and deal with it myself? SpinningSpark 23:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG. Here's an interesting case. Dai Hong Dan is clearly a candidate for deletion as WP:ONEVENT (see all-date Google news archive search—not perfect, but gives you an idea). But it seems that individual ships that were the objects of piracy are somewhat like episodes in a serial. Any thoughts on how to deal with them? Bongo matic 15:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Last December you wrote on WP:AFD:
Do you know any tech savy editors who would be able to reinvent the wheel and create a bot which contacts the creator of an article when it is put up for Afd? I say "reinvent the wheel" because one editor already created this bot and had it approved already:
Ikip ( talk) 07:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
As a member of the Bilateral relations task force, you maybe interested in this new page: Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion Ikip ( talk) 17:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
That particular game said it was an online game, so it qualified or A7. I've seen products A7'd without question before. Bleah, you're right tho. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 19:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Dottydotdot/confirmsignup
can non-admin users vote too? -- Abce2| How dy! 21:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes! Thanks! Abce2| How dy! 21:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
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)
21:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I was asked to participate in the AfD of "Home and family blog". I looked up the relevant guidelines, and have posted them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home and family blog for your consideration. The Transhumanist 22:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG,
Thank you so much for the revisions and edits of the Onyx Pharmaceuticals page! I really appreciate you taking the time to help me out with article. I removed the dead links on analyst coverage and instead linked to Onyx's Yahoo!Finance Analyst Coverage page. In addition, I added Onyx's Hoover's profile page under notability.
When you have a chance to look over again, can you let me know if it looks like it is ready to be posted?
Thanks again for your help! - EG
EGagnon7224 (
talk)
13:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello David:
It has been awhile since we talked. Moreover, of course, my first contact is to ask a favor. Can you copy a deleted AFD article, Tuan Nguyen to my subpage? I think I may be able to resurrect with a little TLC. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 17:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear DGG, I'm having a bit of a disagreement with an editor regarding WP:PROF. Do you care to weigh in? And please do tell me if I interpret those guidelines incorrectly--I do sometimes find it difficult to decide on notability; still, I think I'm within policy in this discussion. Thanks for your time! Drmies ( talk) 21:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
DGG, how's your Spanish (or Hungarian)? It can't be worse than mine! Somehow I find this an inviting nut to crack, and suspect that you may as well. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Sir. You are indeed a Good Egg ((c) Mastcell). Perhaps your input will inspire a passing Hungarian or Colombian to take an interest and -- gasp of horror -- visit a library, with books 'n' stuff, in order to bring in other aspects of the relationship, complete with "RS". -- Hoary ( talk) 06:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I've completely rewritten and expanded the Mibbit article. Could you have a look at it? Tothwolf ( talk) 11:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Michaud Point should be Point Michaud which should the proper title -- Cherry1000 ( talk) 17:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
.. I really don't think adding "Canadian philosophers, known as academics or authors" improves this list at all. It's like saying "here's a list, but it's not accurate" Many of the people on the list were put there as psychologists (when is was a list of Montreal psychologists & philosophers), several are authors with no connection at all to Philosophy. The entire list needs to be rewritten or thrown out. "Category: Canadian Philosophers" [2] is a longer and slightly more accurate list, although many of the same false positives are there. Hairhorn ( talk) 03:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I would be grateful if you would re-examine the Effectrode article again and see if it now satisfies Wikipedia's requirements.
Thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogolplex ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I received a message on my talk page about the SCFX speedy deletion notice at 1:18, and at 2:41 it was deleted. I request the article be restored so I can properly evaluate and respond to the notice. Robert K S ( talk) 18:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I assume this was a bad edit on your part? (I figure the best course is to bring it up to you rather than doing something about it). Cheers, tedder ( talk) 12:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
RE: this. This is a new change to me. Do you know where the discussion for this took place? If not I'll poke around. I have to admit, since my job got busier and busier, I have less and less time to focus on Wikipeia, which is a shame, because I could totally do this all day for money and be ecstatic. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou for you comments. I've made further ammendments in line with your suggestions and would be grateful if you would take another look to see if they now satisfy Wikipedia requirements. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogolplex ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from that article. It was added by the article's author and therefore should not be removed without his permission. – Pee Jay 16:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI. rootology ( C)( T) 04:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
You deleted Dr. Amit Abraham per an AfD and the article is back. Given the history involved, I suspect that User:Dr lisy may be a sockpuppet. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 05:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I yanked a kind of touchy reply because it was only going to derail things, but could you please avoid comparing bit-twiddling on Wikipedia to murdering people? I realize your intent wasn't to inflame or offend, but it's not possible to respond to the argument made by that analogy without further handling a distasteful, emotionally-charged subject in an inappropriate venue. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire - past ops) 11:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
We can discuss it here. I continue to support my basic analogy, though it isn't exact in some respects. Read it again: i was referring not to participation of any person or any group, but characterising the overall process at AfD as being a lynch mob. My reference was to the method of !voting, whereby consensus is judged from the opinions of the people who choose to show up for the discussion. In other words, one picks what case one wants, and joins the jury. The first reason it isn't exact, is that it applies to both sides of the issue. those who wish to comment on a particular case do so and consensus is j. This is perfectly reasonable if it's a matter of comments The second reason it isn't exact is that it also applies to the judge, the closing administrator. So it's worse than a lynch mob,so bad that I know of no human process that works that way in the RW. The notoriously most fickle jury system was the Athenian jury, and it had advantages over ours: though it contained only volunteers, which case you sat on was a matter of chance, and it had much wider participation. It has not escaped my attention that we have similar processes elsewhere--I think RfA has frequently seen that comparison. I'd apply it with various degrees of closeness to RfC also, and to the admin boards, and arbitration enforcement, and Speedy delete.
I'm not here to juggle bits. If I wanted to play computer games, I prefer game worlds (or programming environments) with fixed rules within which to maneuver. DGG ( talk) 18:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
You deleted "Buzz Off Insect Shield" today with the code G11. Can you tell me what areas need to be edited to make the article ambiguous and acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ownzered ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
DGG, here's something that should appeal to the discerning librarian: ISBN 9994110101. Worldcat has two entries for it. A bit more digging around and I tentatively conclude that this book has an Armenian title -- of course in Armenian script, which is not supplied directly in any of the sources I've seen but clearly raises transliteration conundrums. It also has a Japanese title (perhaps largely decorative) and an English title (probably only decorative, or to help the harried, non-Armenian, non-Japanese, scriptly-challenged librarian. One of the two Worldcat entries starts to explain the relative amounts of Armenian and Japanese, but does so in cryptic German librarian-speak. Surely you'll find this irresistible.... Hoary ( talk) 00:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Good work Sir! I'd never heard of Wendebuch but the notion is very familiar to me; it's common for journals put out by Japanese institutions to have contributions in horizontal script (whether western or Japanese so written) starting at what the western reader would take to be the front, and contributions in vertical Japanese script starting from the "back". (This only half resembles the tête-bêche of old "Ace Doubles" paperbacks.) For several reasons, I hesitate to ask the LC for more info, and I wouldn't suggest that you did so either; if I did want to pursue this, I'd ask the Japan–Armenia Friendship Association, which I imagine would be happy to be of assistance here. ¶ I do like the idea of a book in Armenian and Japanese. "My" library has ISBN 80-85909-25-1 , a superb book in an improbable congeries of languages; and somewhere (I've mislaid it) in my own "library" is a little photo book in parallel Lithuanian and Italian. -- Hoary ( talk) 03:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually "fan junk" = unreferenced, poorly written material which is not verified with little relevance to the real world and is only understood by fans who know or care about the characters. PLease STOP making judgements about everybody and assuming I nominated the article because I didn't like it. If you can't see the glaringly obvious issues the "article" has aside from subject matter then I'm very sorry, Dr. Blofeld White cat 08:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The Human Sexuality Barnstar | ||
message Pluginaiden ( talk) 10:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC) |
For your relentless works in the homosexual community.
Hi DGG
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia Gray, you wrote that "for a short story writer, notability typically comes through inclusion in anthologies."
I have noticed that you have opined on several occasions about topic-specific notability indicia, often totally different from (not necessarily more or less inclusive than) the actual guidelines. Given that you have obviously put a lot of thought into the matter, I think many people would find it valuable if you kept a cheat-sheet of your shortcuts for everyone.
Regards, Bongo matic 03:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there a WP policy which states as you say "permanent diplomatic missions in all major countries are notable". LibStar ( talk) 13:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
OK thanks. LibStar ( talk) 00:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw this AfD, which caught my interest, then got side-tracked into mini-bios of Irish participants in the Colombian wars of independence: James Towers English, James Rooke, William Aylmer and Francisco Burdett O'Connor, then further side-tracked to Mariano Montilla and Pedro Antonio Olañeta. John Devereux (con artist) and Francisco Tomás Morales are obvious gaping holes, and I suppose others will appear. But to go back to the AfD, now in day 6, any comments? Aymatth2 ( talk) 23:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
"not just retail; business articles in general. Our weakest area." Besides country music of course. Hint hint. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 00:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
You might be interested in this -- surely as a librarian even if editing the wikipedia page itself doesn't seem necessary. regards, Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, because of a discussion that I am now engaged in, I would appreciate it if you could attend to the old user page I moved out of sight, thanks. Mish ( talk) 21:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG
This is a request to you as a conscientious editor who thinks about not only whether content should be included, but where. I would appreciate your views of the issue discussed at Talk:Buddha Jumps Over the Wall#Due weight to shark finning. My views are stated there in (probably more than) full.
Thanks, Bongo matic 05:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I replied at my talk page. Regards, – Juliancolton | Talk 02:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC). Ditto. See my modified statement above & my comment on your talk p. You did not do this right, but it isn't worth the trouble to follow it up; there are more important things to be doing. DGG ( talk) 02:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, DGG. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#John_R._Talbott. Thank you.} Toddst1 ( talk) 07:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Some of the posts over at the AfD for Johnston are rather scary. It seems that people don't understand notability, or even read the one links that they provide. The one event says that if its a really big event, even minor figures can be notable from it. Then someone put forth an idea that the rest of his life isn't notable so it shouldn't be mentioned. Bah, do they not realize that encyclopedias don't have only "notable" information, or most pages would be empty? The fact that so many people have heard about him and there being over 8 months of coverage, scandal, interviews and the rest makes it all rather mind boggling. Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Article_rescue_contest_2#Judges, if you are interested. Thanks! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 16:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that I don't include you in this. Black Kite 23:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75 ½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk |
Told you it was a G11. :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The article doesn't say.
I'm interested, because I need to explain the benefits in the guideline on outlines I'm writing. (Outlines are a type of tree structure).
I've also asked the question at various reference desks, and these threads may help to jump start your brain on this question. :)
What benefits have you noticed?
How are Wikipedia's outlines useful to you?
I look forward to your answers on my talk page.
The Transhumanist 04:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
One nom was a troll nom, and the other was speedy closed only a couple days after a previous one. Those two shouldn't count, in my opinion. And if it's so notable, where the heck are the sources? That's the big one for me. I see six secondary sources (hardly any of which seem to mention it in more than passing) and nearly twice as many primary ones. Everyone keeps saying it's notable, so why aren't they proving it?! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you please undelete Mechademia so that I can use the original text and some reviews I've unearthed to make a better article? -- Malkinann ( talk) 02:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see this notice at WP:BLPN; you may wish to comment there. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Britain is not the same area as British Isles. This article was moved some months ago to Military history of the peoples of the British Isles, and wrongly moved imo. And for the wrong reasons too by user Setanta747. purple ( talk) 19:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Yo, is there chance that the article you left on this AfD was supposed to be for another AfD? I may be totally off, just checking. OlYeller Talktome 15:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I've emailed you back.-- Jklein212 ( talk) 19:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
You said very, but probably meant "every". It changes the meaning of your statement, so I thought it was worth pointing out. Cheers, tedder ( talk) 04:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see Talk:English_Travellers#Source -- PBS ( talk) 11:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Please don't be so credulous. Part of your job, too, as a Wikipedia editor, is to look for good refs. Had you done so, no doubt you would have concurred with the prodder that this is a hoax. Perhaps now you could do the appropriate thing, viz., look for sources, and then either add them if you find them, or, if you find none, nominate this and CMA Group for afd. Thanks. 160.39.213.97 ( talk) 12:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you feeling less weak, now? ☺ Uncle G ( talk) 10:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
removed image because it broke the syntax here and made some other messages unreadable, but it's in respect to the successful RfA of ' Flying[[User talk:FlyingToaster|
As it happens, this whole revision did begin as a discussion on WP:VPP. If you want to attract more attention, feel free to post a notice about the ongoing discussion there, or on other noticeboards where canvassing for this sort of thing would be appropriate. -- Ryan Delaney talk 18:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't use email, please post in an appropriate manner messages on my talk page. LibStar ( talk) 03:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I see that you have not yet been informed of this. Please throw in your hat there, if you'd like. 06:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I have a bit of context loss on this one: [6] - what final version and draft are you referring to? 00:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear DGG, I would appreciate your advice regarding the handling of an edit war continued by an anonymous user in the article sipgate. The user continues to add/revert material that is unmistakenly against WP policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. Would you please review this? The article (about a company) itself has problems with notability in fact. Kbrose ( talk) 22:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
There's no such a thing as Chilean resistance. That term was made up by a ramdom user. Please do a quick search on google to see that there's no connection whatsoever, between the term and the oppposition to Pinochet's government/dictatorship. Likeminas ( talk) 18:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you take another look at this one? It was redirected once to coupon by another editor before the user drugzoo added everything back to the article including its one and only reference drugzoo.com at which time I tagged it as promotional only. If nothing else it is a gigantic coatrack on which to hang the link to his or her website. Thank you. Wperdue ( talk) 04:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue
Telling editors that they should write an article on a subject other than the one that currently exists is not a particulary helpful opinion. If you want to write an article on Our Lady of Darkness that incorporates a mention of Megapolisomancy, go right ahead. I'm sure that you would do a fine job of it; but that's not really a valid defense of the article I nominated for deletion, and it doesn't address the reasons for deleting the specific article. Let's not allow differences of perspective to override the existing policies and guidelines, no matter how much you might disagree with them. If you want to dispute them, there are other forums, Deor ( talk) 03:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't read it. But the Amazon official review says: "For an accomplished pro like Leiber, a sorry performance." I like Pramoedya Ananta Toer's Quartet, and I think I saw Salman Rushdie and Tom Robbins have new books out. I don't read as many books as I used to since I started working on Wikipedia. Did you finish Atlas Shrugged already? I guess you just couldn't put it down. :) Have a great weekend David. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 05:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC) I guess I need to come up with something sci-fi and fantasy related though... Have you seen the latest Star Trek film? It's supposed to be good. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 05:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
We have been deleted based on Lack of Notability. Please take a look at our situation and if you have any thoughts we welcome your input. NOTICE: Actions have also been made against some of the affilaites listed as references.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Full_Armor_of_God_Broadcast
TY! Ivanhoe610fa ( talk) 14:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe...
I was experiencing mental block on the article draft for "outline" and on the outline guideline draft. And this was holding the whole project back. Without these (which are intended to explain the type of lists known as outlines in detail), the danger is higher that a controversy could go the wrong way.
I requested help on them, but there was none forthcoming.
So I went ahead and started us on the next phase of operations without those 2 pages...
Our AWB'ers and I have placed about 1600 notices all over Wikipedia. And the plan is to place several thousand more.
This generated only one complaint, but it was a very vocal one, and attracted a few other detractors who seemed unfamiliar with the concept of hierarchical outlines and their benefits. However, just as many or more editors came to the defense of the OOK, and there was no consensus formed. But, dab is still trying to rally opposition to outlines at the Village Pump. See below...
It appears that the banner placed on the talk page of the Outline of Switzerland caught the attention of an editor named Dbachmann who posted a rather forceful message on my talk page, another on WT:WPOOK, another at WP:VPP, and still another at WP:AN!
He went well out of his way to use negative hype to cause a stir.
It appears that Mr. Bachmann doesn't understand the nature of hierarchical outlines and their applications. And though he implied that he has never seen an OOK outline before, he was involved with a discussion on these when they were called "lists of basic topics".
His primary argument is that outlines are content forks of articles, and violate WP:CFORK.
But "topic lists", of which outlines are a type, have been around for almost as long as Wikipedia, and fall under the WP:LISTS and WP:STAND guidelines. They aren't intended as forks, as they are lists, bringing the benefits of lists to the corresponding subjects, such as grouping and navigation.
Someone suggested an MfD, but lists are articles, and are within the jurisdiction of AfD. Only the portal page, which merely lists the outline articles, falls within the scope of the MfD department.
The administrator's noticeboard was considered the wrong venue for the discussion, and the discussion was closed.
But Dab's discussion at the Village Pump is still active. Hopefully level heads will prevail there too.
Am I disheartened or deterred? Hell no. I say "full steam ahead!"
But we really need to finish the article draft and the guideline. Otherwise there will continue to be confusion.
Over the next week or two, we'll be posting another 1600 or so notices. It's a good thing we didn't send out 10,000 of them all at once. :)
The Transhumanist 23:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
On the CSD RFC, you said "The only reason I do not challenge more is the need to keep good relations with my fellow admins. I trust most admins to use discretion most of the time. I trust nobody among us to use it right all the time.". I'm not the most frequent CSD closer, but I'ld like to invite you to challenge me on every CSD close you have doubts about. For AfD, I will often send you to DRV, but with CSD's, I'm more likely to undo my deletion and (if needed) send it to AfD instead. I don't always agree with you, but I don't think that your usually well-reasoned opinion will cause any friction. If it does anyway, I'll try to politely withdraw this invitation :-) Fram ( talk) 13:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I have replied to your e-mail with an explanation. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 20:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
EC at the MfD? Send diff? I'll check. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah. Found it. Go ahead and switch our comments, since we were both responding to Dc. Keep yours indented and outdent mine. Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Within the past month or so, you appear to have commented on at least one AN/I, RS/N, or BLP/N thread involving the use of the term "Saint Pancake" in the Rachel Corrie article. As of May 24th, 2009, an RfC has been open at Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Request_for_Comments_on_the_inclusion_of_Saint_Pancake for over a week. As editors who have previously commented on at least one aspect of the dispute, your further participation is welcome and encouraged. Jclemens ( talk) 23:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, the current notices, and the planned ones, concern the development of existing outlines. For example, notices of work that needs to be done to them, and notices to recruit editors to help out on them.
The Transhumanist 01:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: Another related thread has popped up at WP:VPR#OoK's expediency. --TT 04:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey David. I was wondering if you would be willing to reconsider your delete vote in the case of Connie Bea Hope? At the worst I think a merge (which I have no inclination to support) to the tv station WKRG would seem a better route. I've been finding more sources and putting more pieces of the puzzle together as far as the show and its history go. For example I'm working on a source that includes the show as an early favorite in the channel's history. I think this biography is well worth including, even though it's notability is regional rather than national or international. Thanks for your kind consideration. Oh and I'm working on an article on the program itself now too Woman's World (tv) so we'll see what comes of that. Perhaps a merger may be in order down the road. But the show has had notable guests, so I'm going to see what comes of it. And I also found a source with an archival tape of the show. Thanks for your kind consideration. How was the new Star Trek movie? Have fun. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 22:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bug you, hoping you're still at the wheel. I investigated the above since it was listed at WP:SCV, and found it a verbatim copy of wikibin - which is fine since it's GFDL-licensed. However, given the name of the site, I wonder whether the wikibin article isn't itself a copy of the wikipedia article deleted through this AfD, which would make the article a G4 case. Would you mind having a quick glance? Thanks. MLauba ( talk) 21:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Input on the OOK threads at the Village Pump has died down (at both WP:VPP and WP:VPR), and there is currently no consensus on either.
For the number of notices we posted (over a thousand) the number of complaints we received (the two VP threads mentioned above) was quite low.
Considering most of the outlines are orphans, they get pretty good use.
Note that people who are happy with articles on Wikipedia generally don't say anything, so I simply interpret it as positive feedback.
Using Traffic, I compare the traffic of articles, their corresponding outlines, and their corresponding portals from time to time.
Outlines are starting to catch up to portals. Though the main portals, which are included in a navbar menu at the top of most portals are still way ahead of their outline counterparts.
Both outlines and portals are way behind the articles on the same subjects. Articles usually have 20 to 30 times the traffic.
Keep in mind that most outlines are orphans, with the primary link to them being Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge.
Traffic should improve once we include links on the corresponding subject pages, including the main subject as well as subjects that correspond to subheadings (e.g., History of x, and in the case of countries: Geography of x, Demographics of x, Culture of x, etc.)
I'm convinced the traffic of outlines will overtake portals once we've link-integrated them into the encyclopedia. And since outlines serve as tables of contents for each subject, it seems most fitting to place links to them in the form of hatnotes at the top of each subject's main articles (and the sub-subjects mentioned in the paragraph directly above).
By the way, there's another traffic counter called Wikirank, but I haven't tested it out much yet, but will do so in the coming weeks.
I'd personally take "published numerous books globally" as an assertion of importance. Just my 0.02$ though :) -- MLauba ( talk) 09:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the heads up, and I agree with your change.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Once the traffic of outlines has overtaken portals, it will be time to replace portals on the Main Page, even if we need to spearhead a new main page redesign! This isn't a far-fetched idea. I was the one who jumpstarted and led the project responsible for the current main page design (until it hit critical mass and attracted other leaders), and I was also the most active editor on that project. I even created the WP:CBB on the Community Portal to promote the main page election. The second time around should be easier.
Targetting the Main Page is a few months off.
Right now, we need to continue posting notices and start link-integrating the OOK into the encyclopedia.
I have a whole slew of AWB tasks to assign. I hope you are ready. :)
WP:WPOOK needs members. Tell all your friends about the OOK, and get them to join.
The Transhumanist 02:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Created a stub; but is this really the most prestigious award in that noble profession? -- Orange Mike | Talk 14:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Since you commented in the Great Clay Belt deletion review, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Maury Markowitz and redirect deletions. Feel free to ignore or remove this if you're not. -- NE2 13:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
"The article has plenty of room for expansion." Expansion from what sources? Urban Dictionary? Encyclopedia Dramatica? Message boards? Seriously, you'd keep an article on my left big toenail, wouldn't you? :-P Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Replied on my talk. EyeSerene talk 16:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello I don't care to contradict you, but Law enforcement in The Gambia was deleted for exactly this reason, a {{ db-empty}} and looking over your contributions, I don't think that you got all of the ones that I tagged; others may have been deleted as well. If you need to respond, please do so on my talk. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
(from my message to Kintetsubuffalo)" The series of articles that you have written Law enforcement in Benin (etc) are ll being nominated by another editor as speedy deletion for lack of content-- As reviewing admin, I think they do not quite meet the conditions for speedy deletion, but they really are not adequate as they are, so I have changed them to proposed deletion, giving you 7 days to improve them with some content and references. I suggest at the very least, date of founding and number of staff, for the various services. DGG ( talk) 04:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)"
DGG Thanks for any help you can provide so we can get ECRI Institute on Wikipedia. As a proper reference, here is a report from the Agency for Healthcare and research Quality, listing us in the Bibliography, page 56, #9 https://www.ecri.org/Documents/EPC/Cardiac_Catheterization_in_Freestanding_Clinics.pdf CK Kocherecri ( talk) 00:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is another - we are part of the World Health Organization - I'll see if I can find a reference there. See below. CK Kocherecri ( talk) 01:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC) http://www.frsoft.com/pages/InfoPage.aspx?PageID=303
Since you are aware of this deletion discussion, asking you for advice about this AfD won't be perceived as canvassing. Do you think Andy Wisne can be saved? The subject passes WP:GNG, but the voters are all voting delete because of the COI and neutrality issues. I'm willing to rewrite this article, but will it be futile? Cunard ( talk) 04:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
As you probably know, following AfD discussion the consensus was to keep and clean up Regional vocabularies of American English. This will require adding references where possible, and removing large amounts of unreferenced material. I have begun this process; your help would be greatly appreciated. Cnilep ( talk) 15:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
You are mentioned as part of the discussion at WP:ANI#User:DreamGuy and User:174.0.39.30 68.146.162.11 ( talk) 23:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I am bring this to your attention as an administrator. DreamGuy's comments to User:Granite thump are, in my opinion, way out of line in his final comments here. For his past acts DreamGuy has been placed on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and (it says) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked. I personally think he has made a huge assumption of bad faith against User:Granite thump, but I am not an administrator. I trust your judgment. Varbas ( talk) 04:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_DreamGuy_2 - See this request for clarification regarding DreamGuy «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Please, I need you to be involved. DreamGuy and MuZemike have started a complaint about me, once again, claiming that I am a sockpuppet here. This is the 2nd taime is a week. It looks like a full-out phishing expedition this time. They have also thrown the relative newbie User:Granite thump into their complaint. This is a huge assumption of bad faith. MuZemike and DreamGuy's accusations, the approval of a CheckUser, and no notification to either myself or User:Granite thump, is completely against wikipolicy (as I understand it). You are an admin. It is part of your role to enforce the rules and policy. Is there anything you can do to help control the harassment we are now be subjected to? And also, can you explain to me why the WP:AE review of DreamGuy’s behaviour was so suddenly aborted by User:KillerChihuahua, with no sanctions against DG? That was just strange. If you are not able/willing to get involved, can you point me to someone who is not afraid of DG? Varbas ( talk) 00:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG, I was wondering if you could clarify your comment at Anthony Tavera's DRV:
Overturn' Checking on iIMDB, I very strongly doubt that a young person playing these minor roles -- some as just a voice-- is actually notable; The CSI role is probably not enough to be significant--I gather he's the victim-- but it was enough to pass speedy. Dream Focus is wrong about speedy; it is done and needs to be done when there is no indication of any possible notability, which happens quite a lot--of the 5 or 10 speedies I do a day, about half are for that reason.
I was a little confused by this. You ¬voted Overturn, indicating that you do not agree with the A7 deletion. However, you argue that his roles are "not enough to be significant", as in "making a credible claim of significance", which looks like an argument in favour of speedy deletion. "pass speedy" could be interpreted two ways, at least by a {{ User en-3}} like myself. "pass" as in "qualify" or "meet" the criterion, or "bypass". On the other hand, from your comments elsewhere, I would be very surprised if you would endorse this A7. Thanks, decltype ( talk) 05:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
You were active on the talk page concerning consensus. Could you provide comments here please? Any opinion would be appreciated: [11]. Faustian ( talk) 16:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Outlines was growing so large that I split this section off as a separate page.
I look forward to your feedback and improvements.