Oct08,
Nov08,
Dec08,
Jan09, ... ,
Mar09,
Apr09,
Hi dear DGG, some people want to delete my account, my account is everything to me, could you help defend me before might delete me. Thanks-- Standforder ( talk) 20:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
From this discussion, we get the box on the right - cool eh? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I only log in to Wikipedia intermittently and doing so today noticed a message from you about the deletion of a page I either never knew, or had forgotten, existed. It was the one named in the head of this post. My question is why was I notified about its deletion? I am assuming I must have been listed as a contributor (I have no memory of having done so). Beyond that I am curious how I can offer, if it is even possible, people a page, whether on Wikipedia or elsewhere, that helps people researching this subject (helminthic therapy) to find providers while honoring the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's rules. Judging from your honors and history I am guessing you know the answer to this question, excuse me my ignorance, please.
Could I build a page on some external website as an authoritative source and link to it from Wikipedia? The therapy itself is based on science which is easily referenced, but the providers are just two so far as I know, and a foundation devoted to it popularization. So finding it is difficult. Is it possible to provide this information through Wikipedia while obeying the rules?
thanks in advance, and keep up the great work.
FQ1513 ( talk) 22:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi and thanks, you confirm everything I assumed and will leave the subject alone. FQ1513 ( talk) 02:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
See recent findings and proposal on Talk:Mission: Impossible#Moving the article. I plan to move the article if nobody objects over the next week. I you do have concerns, please note them on the talk page. Thanks, Aymatth2 ( talk) 13:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Dr. Wesley L. Boykin Edits JABSE, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Dr. Wesley L. Boykin Edits JABSE is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (
CSD R3).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Dr. Wesley L. Boykin Edits JABSE, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click
here
CSDWarnBot (
talk) 23:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you point me in the direction of our notability standards for software because they seem extremely low per you stance here [2]?
semi related- What is the point to have an article on WP if it will never because about to be a good article or a B rated article for that matter? 16x9 ( talk) 13:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the infomation. I hate being a deletionist but I guess I see more "promotional spam" than you. To many articles are written for an advertisement of the subject or an "anti"-ad. 16x9 ( talk) 00:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi David, I just came across Non-Muslim view of Ali#References which says see Hadith of position for references. As the latter article has been deleted, would you mind seeing whether the references can easily be retrieved? - Fayenatic (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
David, I've tried to post my colleague Mark Harris's [ account for UPI] in 1983 of the execution of John Louis Evans. Mark wanted to include his article as part of the record on this execution, especially since there is no digital version available online anywhere. I think this is a totally legitimate and valuable addition to the entry on the execution, What's the right procedure for including this. Mark has given me a scanned imaged of one of the several places the original wire story ran.
My other question was about how to move or rename a page. I've read the Wikipedia instructions on this but I don't see where this "move" tab is. Thanks Jackhmason ( talk) 19:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It needed trimming, but I'm to close to the subject. Dloh cierekim 03:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
In this speedy decline, you state that the list is not "overly promotional"; however the G11 criteria is actually, "Pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Given that this list does nothing but promote the line ("exclusively promote") and explicitly fails wp:NOTCATALOG ("would need to be fundamentally rewritten"), I think this is a perfect example of a G11 list. Also, these toys/models are thoroughly covered at other articles already, so no information is lost by deleting the article other than the company's wikified catalog. NJGW ( talk) 04:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
How can I add a synonym for the Brüel & Kjær article on Wikipedia. Since the title of the article includes Danish end German lettering, including an alternative title for the article would help many people find the article...people who may not have a Danish keyboard. Since the article is posted on the English version of Wikipedia, the title should also appear in an English alternative (Bruel & Kjaer). Is there any way to add synonyms for the title and key words for searches? Thank you again, for all your assistance in becoming familiar with the world of Wikipedia. Kasper Broue ( talk) 12:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I encourage you to respond to comments about your keep vote. Tim meh ! 00:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
FYI the follwing also exists Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Shrewsbury Snowfight of February 3rd. ttonyb1 ( talk) 21:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The decision taken by certain members of the wikipedia not to discuss their plans to delete this article on the talk page shows a distinct disregard for fellow members of the community. An article is being prepared for the local paper which doubtless would have been added to the reference in due course (this was a significant event, not only for the schools but also due to the injuries and general disruption caused), had members not acted in such haste. I expect the article will reappear presently.-- Daniel Greenwood 03.02.2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.159.22 ( talk) 22:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
You were wondering why I wanted to have the article sequence rule, which I created, deleted... so, it turns out that I screwed up. I didn't realize that this topic was already covered by the page Cahn-Ingold-Prelog priority rules, which I didn't discover until much later. Also, although this rule is supposed to have five sub-rules, I am no longer confident that they are as I have written them - I really screwed up, I didn't even consult the references that I supplied, instead I was told these rules by word of mouth (seriously!) Essentially the article has no meaningful purpose and I'm embarrassed by my mistakes, so I'd like it deleted. Bbi5291 ( talk) 03:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC) OK, the best thing to do in this case seems to be to redirect the article to Cahn-Ingold-Prelog priority rules, which I just did, though it doesn't take an admin. . It's a meaningful search term, and the redirect will save the next guy from doing the same thing again. As a general rule, it's theway to handle accidental duplicates. If you though of an alternate wording, so will someone else DGG ( talk) 03:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
U-got mail..-- Hu12 ( talk) 18:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I see you just delete this - it was on its third incarnation. Are there guidelines on how many times a page is re-created before it is protected? pablo hablo. 18:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, could you perhaps have a look at the discussion at this AfD? There is a new user there and the citation data he gives are like nothing I have ever seen. I don't really know what to make of this and your advice will be appreciated. Thanks. -- Crusio ( talk) 23:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
As you probably remember, last spring we started work on the "Geography and places" branch of Wikipedia's Outline of knowledge. (WikiProject Lists of basic topics has been renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge). The geography branch is in the form of a set of outline pages including one for every present-day nation or state in the world. That's 247 pages! This has been a huge undertaking, involving dozens of editors using advanced wiki-tools.
These pages have come a long way, and it won't be long before the whole set is complete enough to be moved to article space into the encyclopedia for the benefit of all. But there's still a lot of work left, and we could use all the help we can get!
While some editors prefer to work on one country at a time, most of our team members take on a particular entry and complete it across all the pages. This has come to be our standard type of task. To facilitate this process, we apply tools such as AutoWikiBrowser, Linky, and WikEd, all of which can be used to process a large number of pages in various (direct or indirect) ways.
In case you are interested in what we've been up to, here's a progress report:
Lately, development has been slow but continuous:
On our recruiting initiative, Penubag has done a fantastic job on the images for the awards we'll be using for our project's collaborations and contests. We now have 3 awards: a medal, a trophy, and a race ribbon. They all look tight. The trophy needs a small adjustment, but other than that, all 3 award images are complete and ready to use to create awards with.
Spartaz has warned us of (threatened to take) G4 (speedy delete) action if we run a competition that resembles the previously deleted Awards Center page. So whatever we do, any contests we run must differ substantially from the methods used there.
One type of competition I've been exploring is "edit racing". I'm in the process of working the bugs out of this concept - the first race didn't work as expected - you see, because we only had an award for first place, so the opponent didn't think it worthwhile to continue once it was clear who the winner would be. And since editors are in different time zones and usually need to start the race at different times, we need to base winning on personal start times - he who completes his assigned edits in the least time (rather than first), wins. And last but not least is quality control. What good is racing if the participants' edits are ripe with errors? So I'll be exploring possibilities such as using a referee (assigned to oversee a particular race), having participants watching each other for errors to knock them back, etc. I'm not sure yet.
Rich Farmbrough has been applying his bot expertise to filling in blanks in the country outlines (the population and area entries). I'm amazed at the number of edits he pumps out each day on a myriad of projects - ours makes up but a small time slice of his activity, and yet he has saved us many hours of manual work. Perhaps we should look into how he gets so much done. :)
Zlerman has chosen to work on specific outlines, and has taken on Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. He also has been keen on noticing and reporting design issues pertaining to the whole set of country outlines. Keep up the good work!
Highfields is in charge of capitals, adding them to all the outlines. He is also our first race winner. Check out the award on his user pages.
In case you didn't know, this project has expanded to include work on any and all sets of pages represented on the country outlines. Once the set of country outlines go live (in article space), traffic will likely increase for all the links included on them. The quality and usefulness of those pages will reflect heavily on the country outlines. The outlines, which are essentially lists of links, are only as good as the links they present, and therefore we've branched out to solve the biggest problems with those as well. So far, we've taken on:
Blackadam2 and Thehelpfulone have been helping out with the "demographics of" pages mentioned above.
And we have a couple speed addicts (addicted to wiki-velocity, not drugs)...
Both Robert Skyhawk and Thehelpfulone prefer (and excel at) simple AWB search/replaces. Robert hasn't actually joined our team yet, but he has been helping out quite a bit from the sidelines (via the WP:AWB/Tasks page. Unfortunately, there has recently been a non-AWB chore that has been holding things up on the AWB front - an edit to all the headings which had to be reverted before too many new edits were made, because any new edits would make the reversion more difficult. The headings have been restored, so now the way is clear for AWB operations, and there are many search/replace tasks in the queue. AWB assignments have started again!
There's a similar bottleneck on the "Demographics of" pages (the "keying" mentioned above), but that's almost cleared too. :)
With my internet access somewhat crippled as of late, I've been finding it difficult to keep up with you guys. However, I expect to be accessing a Linky-capable workstation on a faster server (I'm on it right now, as you can probably tell from my contributions list for the past couple of days), and so I should really pick up speed. Feels goooooood. :)
Recruiting has been a bit slow (but steady), due in part to my crippled access, and because we've been waiting for the images for the awards to be completed. I expect the team to grow more rapidly as the bottlenecks are removed.
Well that's what's been happenin', and here's what's in the pipeline...
We've got a long list of entries that need to be completed across all the outlines and related page sets. If you would like to dive in with advanced wiki-tools to process this whole set of pages on one or more tasks, drop me a note!
As for me, I'm about to begin work on a set of lists that corresponds to all the standard links on the country outlines, and these will be presented on the Topic outline of countries which will be organized exactly like the country outlines. Aside from being an extremely useful navigation aid, it will allow editors to easily see the state of country coverage on Wikipedia - each list will be one link-set, and each list can be used with our wiki-tools to process the pages listed. I'll provide you with a link once I get up to speed on this.
In the meantime, keep in touch!
Cheers,
The Transhumanist 00:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
_Housecalls
You marked the article we had put up quickly as blatent advertising and spam. The problem here is that our competitor has a page up just like that and is is going fine for them. The next problem is that relevant information is going to be put into that page about the court case that Geek Squad had against us, and we won. The page is informational, just like theirs. If all of our competitors get to put things up, so should we. Especially when our page is going to actually be informative about multiple companies who have pages up on wikipedia already. I do believe that the court case and other things like it apply here. It is something that should be recorded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.139.6 ( talk) 15:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
where I come from, The Boston Globe is considered a reputable source. You say the interviews seem entirely derived from press releases, and yet, there are quotes from both sides (Geek Housecalls and Geek Squad) which is certainly atypical of a press release issued by either party in litigation. Further, there was no press release. The Boston Globe reporter discovered the suit during a routine scan of court documents (digging for dirt)and contacted Geek Housecalls and Geek Squad independently to formulate his story. This story was originally published on the front page of the print edition business section. It is, of course,now only available online in BG archives. -- 98.217.230.166 ( talk) 03:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Not asking you to write the article for me, but can you offer suggestions as to how to clarify? I thought having references was how clarity was achieved. Am I better to quote the Globe article? Thanks-- Atrask ( talk) 12:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
You might want to take a look here [3]. RMHED . 02:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
And I thought of four different ones, & they each seem sufficient. I think I will protect as well, just in case. And, for that matter, block. DGG ( talk) 03:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I know there is little reason for you to be following the mediation discussions regarding The Man Who Would Be Queen, but there is something going on for which I would appreciate your input.
The mediator (SlimVirgin) appears to be of the philosophy that in her role as mediator, her interpretations of WP policies (and their grey areas) supercede the consensuses of multiple noticeboard discussions. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
As I said on the mediation page, overturning consensus does not appear to me to be in line with how WP works. I posed the point here, and any input would be appreciated.
— James Cantor ( talk) 14:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, the only thing I'd say I wanted to hear was an outside opinion. (If/when I am incorrect, I'd prefer to know sooner rather than later.) Nonetheless, if what you mean by what you said at the beginning is that the COI-editors should step aside, then I do agree...and the mediation appears to be talking about every issue but that one despite that that was the issue we brought to mediation in the first place.
— James Cantor (
talk) 16:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
You commented on that page that you had proposed a modification on a talk page, but I do not see anything. If your proposal was either to find the same concept under another name (I do not see one just yet) or to treat various applications &c. of cubic restoring force then I absolutely agree. - Eldereft ( cont.) 18:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I found exerpts of reviews for Handbook of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome from the publisher so it is likely somewhat biased. [10]. I don't know how to handle or describe this without doing original research. Advice? Thanks. Ward20 ( talk) 19:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I just noticed that someone has moved the page John Morrison and The Miz to Dirt Sheet Duo. That is one of their nicknames. This move was undiscussed. It won't let me move it back because there has been edit history at John Morrison and The Miz. Hope you can help! Thanks, Genius 101 Guestbook 00:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I merged rather than deleted. Bearian ( talk) 21:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
But Malcolm Schosha's at it again. He followed Untwirl to
Rachel Corrie, despite the
repeated warnings against edit-warring against him, and is now reverting him both by proxy (
PR then
myself), and then
directly reverted him later on. That was in the space of three hours, and he's now posted
this threat to demand that his reverts be restored.
To my knowledge he had no prior involvement at this page, and he only began making token attempts to "discuss" his repeated removal of one side's arguments well-after the fact. Which of these two leads is genuinely NPOV is still being debated, I agree. But I believe his actions at the page are wikistalking rather than good-faith attempts at debate. arimareiji ( talk) 23:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for being defensive; I am training to be a professional mathematician, and didn't want anybody (particularly future colleagues) seeing it to think I'd expressed a negative opinion when one wasn't meant. Ray ( talk) 06:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC) -- all OK here DGG ( talk) 06:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
How do you find that the article of The Dynasty is related to a company? It is used to describe a new private building in Hong Kong. If it is deleted, I think Vision City should be also deleted because The Dynasty is the phase 2 development of Vision City. Also, there are many photos to support the article and I don't think the article is useless. Please look it clearly before you deleted it! If you don't know the article, it doesn't mean it should be removed. Ricky@36 ( talk) 03:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm finding your comment here difficult to parse. Is this what you intended to write? Tim Vickers ( talk) 23:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Please see the above page as there has been a change in mediator and state whether or not you accept the new mediator. Regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
You have asked for this page to be RfDed. However this page is not a REDIRECT page. Please delete as requested. Regards, JohnI ( talk) 09:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you please expand your argument with a comment on my nom statement, rather than Lugnuts' faulty assumption. I said it was a copy of part of an existing Teluga list with a POV problem. Mandsford's comment didn't really address my concerns. - Mgm| (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello DGG. About that AfD, you're misinterpreting what I wrote. I certainly could protect the page and would have done that had it not occurred to me that this article shouldn't even exist in the first place. Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 22:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Theon. I don't think it's reasonable to call him a "unit head." There are hundreds if not thousands of comparably-ranked managers at NASA—at least 250 from his section alone. Thanks for your consideration. Cool Hand Luke 03:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You have asked for this page to be RfDed. However this page is not a REDIRECT page. Please delete as requested. Regards, JohnI ( talk) 09:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you please expand your argument with a comment on my nom statement, rather than Lugnuts' faulty assumption. I said it was a copy of part of an existing Teluga list with a POV problem. Mandsford's comment didn't really address my concerns. - Mgm| (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi I have added a Book citation , and was wondering if its O.K to ask you to remove the template You had put ? Hope its O.K I am askink , (Iam quite new to all this... Kind regards -- Avner Strauss ( talk) 19:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks , Fipple is the corect term and a standart among whistle collectors and makers for the back part of a whistle's mouthpiece ( Mostly made of wood in Brass whistles ),nipples have to do with some old Hunting guns or loading equipment. The quotes marks are O.K I was wondering maybe just use '...' ??, as I did in other whistle makers. The F L Johnson is certainly a great addition !! ! Thanks took me a while to find who added. The adresses are in Sheffield. There is a Printed brochure about Sheffield Arm accesories makers,& exhibition published, I gave my copy but it has a lot more info, mostly about flasks and reloading tools and amunition. Glad its good enough to stand now it can be improved . Thanks for advice I will try to follow . -- Avner Strauss ( talk) 07:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
A. Are you a girl? B. If so, will you marry me?
I wasn't even going to get into the content question of what writers should have bibliographies, etc... but to be told that deleting "Once wrote an article for maxim (date and title unknown)" had ruined a bibliography made me feel like i was taking crazy pills. At any rate, you were a ray of sanity in my day. Go well. Bali ultimate ( talk) 00:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC) A. no: my name is on my user page B. I'm married already. But I'm not the least insulted about either part. DGG ( talk) 00:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah...actually two of the ones you picked up on were the two I was least sure about. I'm still a bit new to this whole AFD thing, though...thanks for the advice. -- User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/150.101.115.53 Cluebot has undone it, but recommend blocking this account or IP or whatever it is you do at this stage. JJJ999 ( talk) 22:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to revise the Avalanche article. I spent some time last night making changes which were then reverted by ClueBot. I tried to notify ClueBot of a false positive but the reporting page is not functional. I'd also like to split the topic into two or more separate categories. Most avalanches do not involve people ... therefore a lot of the information in the article is biased toward human-avalanche interaction. This should be cleaned up.
You can examine my changes to the article and you'll see that they're not vandalism. Not sure if I should even bother at this point as Wikipedia makes it SO much work to contribute. No wonder the Avalanche article is so poorly written; most avalanche professionals won't deal with this sort of hassle. I'm happy to give it one more try. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somerandomicicle ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
No need to ever contact me off line from my perspective. I'm a big believer in daylight. Best Bali ultimate ( talk) 15:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It's simply that the thing was a WP:MADEUP candidate and I thought that the A7 applied. Did you want to AfD it? -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 19:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, recieved a msg from Dlohcierekim about an article i just posted. i'm on a contract with this company at the current time and felt necessary to post a bit about them (pls ignore username, bad choice as my intention was to only post up this one article about them). I've taken what was on their About page and trimmed the language to be as neutral as possible (imo of course). This organization is pretty important in the history of education in BC. I understand conflict of interest, but feel this group is fairly well known in education circles and is of value.
Please let me know what parts do not meet requirements and I can have them removed, and possibly find some more references about the history over the last 100 years.
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Openschoolbc ( talk • contribs) 19:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It keeps getting marked as conflict of interest so just ahead and delete the article please. I'd rather have nothing there then have it marked as conflict of interest. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Openschoolbc ( talk) 19:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
See Captive orcas, an attempt to salvage content from the set of articles flagged for deletion. Most of the {{main}} links lead to articles in AfD. Monuments, I like them if dramatic and equestrian. Bus routes, don't think so. Individual Orcas? Aymatth2 ( talk)
Trolling the AfD list can be depressing. I tend to skip the hominids. I just did National Referral Hospital (Thimphu) to clear my head, and a couple of related ones. Not a great article, but the first and only one for a hospital in Bhutan. The first and only one. Is this a well-balanced encyclopedia? Aymatth2 ( talk) 02:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Reluctantly agree. The mix of articles in the English Wikipedia presumably fairly accurately reflect the interests of both editors and readers. That will not stop me writing the odd article nobody is likely to read. Loch Alsh! :~) Aymatth2 ( talk) 03:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
What has been concerning me lately - and I have only got addicted to Wikipedia lately - is not so much imbalance or triviality as insensitivity and outright bias. I got into debates recently about ‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib, Nestorian Stele, Fred Shapiro and others where it just didn't feel right. The decisions were probably correct based on the rules, but they left me feeling really uneasy. Something wrong here. I am going to spend more time writing new articles, avoid the AfD list. Mega Rice Project (Kalimantan) needs a whole lot of work, and a bunch of related articles. All sorts of great books just have stubs. There is so much to write about. I am much more comfortable as an essayist than a critic. Signing off. Aymatth2 ( talk) 03:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
My mistake. I'll go fix it. Thanks for the note. -- Rrburke( talk) 03:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't the article belong at St. John Fisher College instead? Cheers, Enigma msg 06:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was arguing that judgement was correct; the user in question had been kind enough to do some copyediting for me and had changed "judgement" to "judgment". Ironholds ( talk) 04:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I have created a Neutral section for those who agree with the premise but not the method, or some other aspect, which may be altered following talkpage discussion. Perhaps you would wish to review your !vote under the changed circumstances? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for takingthe time to read this. I'm referencing the proposed deletion of the Ernest Sipes picture/article deletion. To be honest, I'm really not that great with computers, but know Mr. Spes personally and have contributed to his page. At the University of Alaka, where there are professors studying the Russian American Company, Sipes work is being quoted and his book is in use at UAF and at the bookstore. I contributed the pictures used to illustrate this person's Wiki page and firmly believe he and his work deserves to be here. Of course, you have the right to delete the pictures and articles, but just because they are not referenced 100% correctly seems a little arbitary to me. I for one would like to see it left like it is. Contact me if there is anything else I can do. Respectfully, Frank Bentner, 3.5 Mile, North Douglas Hwy, Juneau, Alaska —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Bentner ( talk • contribs) 23:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thanks for spelling/grammar suggestions. Ikip ( talk) 05:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I fail to see any indication of importance, unless "global finance company" counts... – ukexpat ( talk) 05:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Why deleted? I wrote the article - sourced information on his fight, and link ot his boxrec record showing his debut as a professional boxer. If there was an issue of BLP then it should have been fixed, not the article deleted. I think you should restore and use AfD if required.-- Vintagekits ( talk) 17:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I've actually always been against machine translation for the very reason you note (except as an extreme last resort, if necessary.) Translation templates are one thing - I like them and think they're useful in directing readers to another possible source of material for an article. But that's because in the end they rely on human translators to do the final job.
If there were some way to dump the translation into an intermediate spot where it could be looked over, now...but that defeats most of the purpose, I'm afraid. -- User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I think most users are intelligent enough to copy edit any very bad mistranslation anyway or at least leave out any sentences or phrases that didn't make sense. I think you underestimate many of our users on here, They want a high quality encyclopedia as much as we do. Even if worse came to worse and they did, readers afterwards can clearly see what has happened and eventually it will be cleaned up. Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the removal of the PROD at all, but just a question - the book is a finalist in a competition, it didn't actually win anything. I did verify that before PRODing it. Is that enough to establish notability? WP:BK says that the book must have won an award. I didn't think the work met any of the other criteria (substantial independent coverage for example). The assertion of notability is obviously grounds for exclusion from WP:SPEEDY but I think the PROD was correct. Anyway, I don't want to get the PROD reinstated or anything, rather just trying to understand the process and making sure I'm not getting these wrong :) § FreeRangeFrog 20:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just got your message regarding Boston Public so I thought I should answer here since most other editors don't bother to see if I have answered on my talk page. Those articles weren't written by me, they were all entered in the same page so I just separated them. I have no actual interest in them (and it a was a long time ago I did this), but if you want I can somehow merge them all into one again when I find time; I'm quite busy doing other articles. Thanks for informing me. Dmarex ( talk) 19:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Useful comment on Addbot adding orphan tags to articles, that the tag is not useful to the reader. I forget that's what's so irritating about some of the tags, when they do nothing for the reader. Should just be a category, not an article topper. -- KP Botany ( talk) 06:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
No DGG. It is not who you asked about. I was just "bouncing around" the other day (I forget where) and noticed that there were alot of requests pertaining to speedy deletes (Re:the subject matter) on a certain usertalk. But I can't remember who or where I "bounced" ....Nuff said?-- Buster7 ( talk) 08:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Johnny Cash Sun Records discography this article includes very detailed content on his recordings with that label. It's getting a lot of delete votes, but the same information is not (and should not) be included in the main Johnny Cash discography article. I'm also confused on Michael Wines. A New York Times bureau chief in high profile postings like Moscow and South Africa, as well as having been a controversial figure in his own right. Why is this getting only delete votes? I've been avoiding AfD and working in article space and came on these through another route, but I don't understand what standards these articles aren't meeting. Can you illuminate me? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 22:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a debate going on at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 11#Assyrian Christian Stele → Nestorian Stele where I would invite your comment. It is a continuation of previous discussions, all of which have been somewhat inconclusive. Some editors want to use an invented term (OR) instead of a pejorative term (NPOV). Two policies in conflict. Maybe you can contribute a sane viewpoint. Thanks, Aymatth2 ( talk) 14:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I have fixed the articles so they use the common term, but with a note that it is technically incorrect. Think that works. Aymatth2 ( talk) 19:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I removed the template you put and explained my reasons on the talk page. Please reply on the talk page. Thanks! -- Marra ( talk) 16:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Sabre ( talk) 21:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC) |
I wonder if you are able to comment on the following principle, relevant to the Ayn Rand dispute - see the talk page, and see WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand. The problem is as follows: William Vallicella, who is a recognised Kant scholar, has published something in a blog post about Rand having completely misunderstood Kant. Someone has objected that while Vallicella is a recognised Kant scholar, he has not published on Rand in reliable sources (a blog post not being considered RS), and so the citation cannot be allowed.
This is the reverse burden of proof problem - it is hard to find scientific sources that discuss pseudoscience. In such cases I believe it is legitimate to source from non-promotional descriptions of pseudoscience that can only be obtained from second- and third-party sources and not peer-reviewed.
The dispute also has affinities with the special pleading problem - that pseudoscientists (or in this case, pseudoacademics) can object that the academics are not expert in the pseudoacademic subject. This is of course an absurd argument, and if allowed unchallenged, would open the floodgate - any advocate of any fringe view could object that the advocates of scientific method simply didn't understand the pseudoscientific 'theory' being advanced.
I appreciate you are not an expert on philosophy (at least I assume not). But this has little to do with philosophy, and everything to do with the need to establish a precedent in Wikipedia policy. Because science is generally silent about pseudoscience, it is difficult to reliably source scientific views on pseudoscience. In such a case, we should be allowed to source views of established scientists or academics or scholars, from any available sources (giving precedence to reliable independent sources where possible).
Principle: "if an established scientist, scholar or academic has made statements about a pseudoscientific or pseudo-academic subject, then whatever the source of that statement, it should be allowed as a reliable source, if no other sources are available." Peter Damian ( talk) 12:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Footnote 7 in the Kant aricle is not supportable:
As written, it's an overgeneralization that has no place in the lede.
I recognize the problem. The general problem is met better by expanding the nature of publications recognized in a much less prescriptive way than your Principle DGG ( talk) 16:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for that very full reply. A detailed reply below. You are quite right about 'some philosophers'. I do have more citations, I will locate them and put them in.
Peter Damian ( talk) 17:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I see you added this. Is there a procedure to determine if the tag is warranted or not? The editor that started the article ( Special:Contributions/Mrhaven715) isn't active on it any more. Xasodfuih ( talk) 23:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
look a bit deeper into precarity dgg. the speedy should happen, it's actually the second speedy of the same copy of the same page. -- Buridan ( talk) 23:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Dig deep, indeed! Harrypotter ( talk) 00:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I have placed a note here has it has taken me so long to reply to your note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject buses/UK bus route quality drive. I have replied there now, apologies for taking so long, I didn't notice! Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Incompatible Food Triad isn't my article. I just corrected some errors in it, but I don't really care whether it lives or dies. You should bring the notice to the creator of the article, not me. Thanks.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 17:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean to say that any secondary school that ever existed, for any amount of time, in any capacity is notable? Ref: Maslow-Toffler School of Futuristic Education -- Lucas20 ( talk) 20:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind taking another look at this AFD since you probably saw a vandalized version of the article; and the cleaned-up version is not so bad (though it needs work) ? Regards. Abecedare ( talk) 05:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG. Could you please remind me the term (it's something like, but not exactly, picket fencing, or gate posting) for when an editor or group of editors creates a group of articles with linking within them to make them appear notable and referenced when they are not? I'm drawing a blank. Tx Bongo matic 01:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Philogo and I both agree to delete that article. He placed a tag that was removed and now I have. There are two articles which suffice for this subject matter (therefore "title" should really point you to the justification sufficeintly). Could you do us a favor and tag that thing for deletion? Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard ( talk) 08:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
So.... In April 2008 diff you called this film article "an acceptable stub", and encouraged those considering deletion to themselves try looking for sources. Well. No one bothered and that stub sat as stub until about 6 hours ago. Do you think it looks any better now? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You may well have forgotten this, but I see you deleted an article on Hank Janson back in 2007. Looks like the problems were notability and references. Having searched for an article on Janson and not found one, I am planning to create one. I can use sources like Bestsellers: Popular Fiction Since 1900 by Clive Bloom (Macmillan) and Simon Gray's memoirs. As for notability, he sold five million books in about ten years; essentially a British answer to Micky Spillane. I'm aware "Janson" was a pseudonym, ultimately used by more than one writer, but I can handle that in the same way Wikipedia handles Ellery Queen. If there are problems I've overlooked (or if you honestly don't care), please let me know - thanks. KD Tries Again ( talk) 22:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again There is no reason why you should not write an article on him. there seems to have been some confusion about whom it referred to.: it is listed as being one of the pen names used by Michael Moorcock, which may or may not be correct. The contents at one point was "Hank Janson is the nom de plume of British writer Stephen Daniel Frances, born in Lambeth, London, in 1917." . DGG ( talk) 01:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Right: Frances created the pseudonym and established Janson as a best-seller. Other writers used it later. But if we can handle Ellery Queen and Sexton Blake, there must be a way to handle this. Thanks. KD Tries Again ( talk) 22:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
I have done everything I can and it does not seem to be good enough for some people. Could you please take a look at the Ghostly Talk article and possibly help me on what needs to be added so the article is not deleted. I have added so much to establish notability and it is not good enough for some. Please help. Gtscottl 06:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
A Nobody
My talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Would you be willing to comment at the discussion here? We are discussing a revision of this featured list of works, from something like this to this. I would appreciate your input. Thanks. Awadewit ( talk) 22:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm currently looking over a long article about a work of fiction that was published in epistalary form in a free weekly. The series received no secondary coverage beyond a passing mention in a gossip column about its author and a blog post. I'm looking for guidelines for assessing the notability of articles, particularly ones that might diverge from general notability standards. The article is Dining Late with Claude La Badarian. Look over it if you're interested, but what i'm really after is policy/guidelines that will aid my decision in whether to nominate it for deletion (and please forgive any typos; just got six stitches on one of my fingers). Bali ultimate ( talk) 17:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
If you mean, on Wikipedia , you may be looking for List of works by William Monahan DGG ( talk) 14:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG
Could you please have a look at Jack Cover and Blackwater Worldwide? The former is what I had hoped to be a noncontroversial move of John Higson Cover, Jr. to his most common appellation (usually given without quotes around it. The latter is per a discussion now at Talk:Xe (company)#Requested move. The consensus is that the article should remain under Blackwater for now.
Thanks, Bongo matic 01:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
←Fully agree, and I think the more important question is how it's referred to within the article. I wish there were more complete coverage of the name change. It would be helpful to know if this is really a change in legal entity name (and if so, what entity or entities) or more of a change in branding (e.g., DBAs, etc.). It would also be good to know if this is a future change or one that has already occurred. It is unhelpful that the company's web sites haven't changed at all. Bongo matic 06:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I've responded to your comments. Tim Vickers ( talk) 16:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw your note, but thanks for pinging me anyhow. I had considered a merge, but I wasn't sure how good an idea that was. WP:MERGE doesn't talk about folding content whose notability is suspect into larger (notable) articles; I mean, if the church was important enough to be mentioned in the town article, I would have thought sources would suggest that. I know we often throw content like fictional characters into lists, but that's a bit different and I was hesitant about applying the same standard (arguably the characters are supposed to be important to understanding the work as a whole.) If you feel a redirect from the church to the town is warranted, by all means go ahead. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 01:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Google_Scholar#Citation_.28example.29_for_erroneous_additional_search_results Affected are mostly papers that have been published a year ago or less. That's why for renowned scientists, who have a number of frequently cited "old" papers, the affected results appear at the end of the list. 84.163.117.6 ( talk) 22:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
An eager new editor, probably a student there, has tried to expand the article. He/she started by cut-and-paste from the college catalog, and I reverted all that; but this is a good-faith person, and I'd appreciate your help there to give 'em a fair shake. Take a look at the article's talk page, and the new kids' as well. -- Orange Mike | Talk 01:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG! I apologize for deleting a valid article. In general, I am very careful about A7 and only delete clear-cut cases. This seemed like a clear-cut A7, but apparently not (I had not read WP:PROF in the past, never really had to deal with articles about professors). Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Ynhockey ( Talk) 22:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up about Sigma Delta, DGG. For future reference though, was I correct in closing the AfD as speedy keep? Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi David -- thought I'd throw this to you when/if you have a moment. I found the above in the backlog and I'm really not sure what to make of it. While I know some journals have a degree of inherent notability, I'm not finding much that would allow us to expand this article. That said, I'm also not sure if it's meant to be about the journal, because it mentions submissions, or the org that produces the journal. Thoughts? StarM 02:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
This is my current project to save. I saw you are a "keep" at the AfD. Can you help start the fix? Bearian ( talk) 16:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I think there is some sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry going on here. A brand new account showed up and disputed the tags on the articles. Thanks for trying to help salvage the article. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 19:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I removed the COI tags from both articles since I could not see anything in them that appeared to be written from a non-neutral standpoint. If you have specific examples of what sentences indicate a conflict please tag them so that they can be changed. Additionally, the articles appear to be well referenced. Do you have specific examples of what in the article does not appear to be properly referenced? ( User talk:Udolph0s) —Preceding undated comment was added on 20:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC).
the place for this is the talk page of the article. But in brief:
DGG ( talk) 20:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey; turns out you were right after all :). In a legal context it is apparently always spelt judgment; sorry about all that. Ironholds ( talk) 02:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Is not Open Access News. http://openaccessblog.com/ is a well-meaning but not notable blog. Fences and windows ( talk) 23:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
...my small correction :). Seraphim ♥ 23:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I lack perspective by being immersed in medical school culture, but in my experience his book is a widely known and essential resource, and his story is well known to medical professionals. Please review my hangon justification on the talk page for more information on his notability; I added it about the time the article was deleted, so you may not have seen it. I also must say that I don't appreciate your scolding tone; I created the article in good faith and you should assume such based on my record if nothing else. - Draeco ( talk) 21:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dale Dubin. 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. Draeco ( talk) 17:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG. Thanks for your input [14] on the possible deletion of this article. I did search on google first (e.g. [15]), I should have made that clear. As a relative newcomer I'd appreciate a third opinion on the notability discussions going on on that article and on the related self-relocation by the same editor. Would it be appropriate to nominate both at AfD now? Ferkel ( talk) 22:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey DGG - thanks for the feedback in my RfA. I've left you a comment. Happy editing to you. Flying Toaster 04:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
What do you think about IC 5357 and the half dozen or so stubs like it? Are all galaxies notable - there's likely to be "billions and billions" of them per Carl Sagan - even if we can never write more thant what's in that article - which is basically where to look for the place from the Earth? Are all stars- "billions and billions" of them in each galaxy, most likewise without much more than their location to be said for them? Are all asteroids or other balls of ice and rock out there (or down here)? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, The Great Asteroid Stub debate has started again here, and input from someone with awareness of the administrative problems of swarms of minimal stubs might be helpful. Alai (who carried the aministrative flag previously) seems inactive of late, so I saw your note in Archive 9, and thought you might join in, or perhaps you could alert some others with useful insight? I believe we can provide the essential information in a table format (with thousands of entries, NB), with links out to serious articles. But I hate to trash their creator's (Captain Panda) efforts by mass deletion, beyond what is really necessary to alleviate the problems these stubs actually create. I would really like to bring this discussion to a satisfactory actionable conclusion this time.
Thanks, Wwheaton ( talk) 23:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I suspect that the creator of these articles has a serious conflict of interest: mainly because he/she asserts copyright over the film still to Colour Blind, which stongly implies involvement with the film; also becase of the relatedness of the user's contributions (see [16] for example). Can you advise: is this enough to go on? If so, should they go on AfD again? And is there a way of listing the three together? Thanks Hopsyturvy ( talk) 14:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The crux of your argument is that he had two notable cases. The AT&T case went in the books at some point for whatever the verdict was, so that's fine. However, the Saudi case was thrown out and never went to trial, so it never was a case. It was a potential case that never happened (according ot the sources PhilBridger found initially). That potentiality was also the rationale for the article's creation ("He's gonna be big when this hits!" was basically what the creator said). So, you might want to either reconsider or explain the position you take in the discussion, because I don't see it, and some other folks don't either. MSJapan ( talk) 17:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I split off your added contradiction in WP:Wikipuffery, and I'm letting you know that someone else has nominated the resulting fork for deletion. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiAntipuffery. THF ( talk) 19:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Altough it claims to be a college, it is not accredited in Switzerland by the OAQ( oaq.ch). IACBE accrediation doesn't mean anything since it is not recognized by the CHEA (www.chea.org). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecognized_accreditation_associations_of_higher_learning The information about this college on Wikipedia is misleading and self-promotional. 77.58.151.156 ( talk) 13:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
One needs to distinguish between being accredited or being member of an association such as the "Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs" (ACBSP). A "member" is an institution that has paid annual fees (see: http://www.acbsp.org/index.php?mo=st&op=ld&sid=s1_020acc&stpg=25) but is not accredited. The more prestigious AACSB states following: Membership does not confer AACSB accreditation and should not be interpreted as achieving accreditation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.151.156 ( talk) 13:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey DGG, there is a guy ( User:NFLOWNAGE) traipsing around making unconstructive edits all around. I put a warning on his talk page after the first one, he has made about 5 more (all have been reverted by others), but they haven't warned him or anything. What should happen here? SMSpivey ( talk) 07:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thanks again for your comments, what troubles me, (given that i subscribe to the "The advanced human aircraft hypothesis" ( Ufology), is that avowed military users are following a similar modus operandi, in this case. (then they call it a personal attack.) this is more of an ad hoc coverup, than a conspiracy.
i suppose i shouldn't wave the red flag of area 58 before them, the problem is, it's in the NYTimes. then the tenditious cutting down 'not authoritative', 'trivial' begins. the longwinded changing of arguments, and not giving an inch, dosn't strike me as good faith either. here we have articles about museums yet to be built, Cold War Museum, civil war forts that no longer exist, Fort Corcoran, but no Area 58. (all in the same neighborhood.) and the problem being, that if i can find it so can any enemy researcher, so it ends up only obscuring the government program from public oversight.
the implication for wiki is that subcultures, with group think, can impose non wiki rules upon specialized parts of wiki, withholding public information. the dissenters are shouted down with specious arguments:
All the quotes say is that this facility is "alleged to be" a satellite downlink station. Even if you choose to ignore the blatant weasel words, that's hardly a big deal, and notability isn't inherited from any notable data which goes through the place. The other citations appear to only mention the site in passing while discussing data which has passed through it
btw, this statement is false.
i've written worse articles, and will continue. how long will it take before they delete it from my userpage? well i will go back to my other articles, where more polite, rational editing prevails. Dogue ( talk) 17:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG, Would you be good enough to review my comment (and the rest of) the DRV for Good Germans. The whole situation is one of the crazier things I've run into, and I trust you to give it a fair hearing. Regards, Cgingold ( talk) 17:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what to do with this one. You tagged it, it was speedied for A7, it was tagged again for G12, I declined that speedy because the first paragraph doesn't seem to be copyvio. The linkfarm in the EL looks like a conceivably interesting list of links, but this really isn't my area and I don't know what we want to do with this article. A7 it again? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 21:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think you fully signed your post at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lu. regards, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
DGG, I have created an article on Hendrik de Wit, based on an article in the Dutch WP (but expanded, referenced, and corrected). As I have a potential (if minor) COI (explained on the article's talk page), I'd appreciate if you could do a quick check to see if all is OK. Thanks. -- Crusio ( talk) 11:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_administrative_assistance_with_whitelist_request_for_Lyrikline.org_page_for_Chirikure_Chirikure The copyright bugaboo is persistent. -- Abd ( talk) 00:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on your chess set post, you got it right. I know you are an Admin, but with respect, most people that are Hall Monitors and Admins are more likely to be Essjay types than say a professional person with a real job. Anyway, I will try to return the favour for you some day. Happy editing and my best regards. Green Squares ( talk) 16:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG- I'm not here to complain, just want to explain my actions. On Hemispherectomy Foundation I removed the proposed deletion tag, based on the fact that I feel it is just as notable as Vitamin C Foundation or Victor Pinchuk Foundation, which have been hanging around for a while and are lacking in quality. I did add another reference source to Hemispherectomy Foundation and do intend to expand it as time allows. Acceptable? Thanks, Paxsimius ( talk) 17:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
This article existed with a timeline as is reproduced on the talk page. This has been converted to plain text consistent with standard encyclopedia formatting. One editor, and I tend to agree, thinks the timeline was a more useful and accesible format for the information. What do you think? Is there a way to have the cake and eat it too? Have you had any experiences with timelines in the past? Clearly it's not standard formatting, but they can be useful and encyclopedic devices me thinks. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
It's a proposal for a CSD noticeboard; debate is over what to use it for. (Not watchlisting because you're way too popular and you'd fill up my watchlist, but feel free to respond on my talk page or elsewhere :) - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 20:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This user is a self-proclaimed sock of his. Here are the socks contributions [ [17]]. I put this in AN/I but since you're clued in.... Thanks Bali ultimate ( talk) 22:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Oct08,
Nov08,
Dec08,
Jan09, ... ,
Mar09,
Apr09,
Hi dear DGG, some people want to delete my account, my account is everything to me, could you help defend me before might delete me. Thanks-- Standforder ( talk) 20:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
From this discussion, we get the box on the right - cool eh? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I only log in to Wikipedia intermittently and doing so today noticed a message from you about the deletion of a page I either never knew, or had forgotten, existed. It was the one named in the head of this post. My question is why was I notified about its deletion? I am assuming I must have been listed as a contributor (I have no memory of having done so). Beyond that I am curious how I can offer, if it is even possible, people a page, whether on Wikipedia or elsewhere, that helps people researching this subject (helminthic therapy) to find providers while honoring the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's rules. Judging from your honors and history I am guessing you know the answer to this question, excuse me my ignorance, please.
Could I build a page on some external website as an authoritative source and link to it from Wikipedia? The therapy itself is based on science which is easily referenced, but the providers are just two so far as I know, and a foundation devoted to it popularization. So finding it is difficult. Is it possible to provide this information through Wikipedia while obeying the rules?
thanks in advance, and keep up the great work.
FQ1513 ( talk) 22:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi and thanks, you confirm everything I assumed and will leave the subject alone. FQ1513 ( talk) 02:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
See recent findings and proposal on Talk:Mission: Impossible#Moving the article. I plan to move the article if nobody objects over the next week. I you do have concerns, please note them on the talk page. Thanks, Aymatth2 ( talk) 13:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Dr. Wesley L. Boykin Edits JABSE, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Dr. Wesley L. Boykin Edits JABSE is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (
CSD R3).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Dr. Wesley L. Boykin Edits JABSE, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click
here
CSDWarnBot (
talk) 23:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you point me in the direction of our notability standards for software because they seem extremely low per you stance here [2]?
semi related- What is the point to have an article on WP if it will never because about to be a good article or a B rated article for that matter? 16x9 ( talk) 13:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the infomation. I hate being a deletionist but I guess I see more "promotional spam" than you. To many articles are written for an advertisement of the subject or an "anti"-ad. 16x9 ( talk) 00:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi David, I just came across Non-Muslim view of Ali#References which says see Hadith of position for references. As the latter article has been deleted, would you mind seeing whether the references can easily be retrieved? - Fayenatic (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
David, I've tried to post my colleague Mark Harris's [ account for UPI] in 1983 of the execution of John Louis Evans. Mark wanted to include his article as part of the record on this execution, especially since there is no digital version available online anywhere. I think this is a totally legitimate and valuable addition to the entry on the execution, What's the right procedure for including this. Mark has given me a scanned imaged of one of the several places the original wire story ran.
My other question was about how to move or rename a page. I've read the Wikipedia instructions on this but I don't see where this "move" tab is. Thanks Jackhmason ( talk) 19:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It needed trimming, but I'm to close to the subject. Dloh cierekim 03:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
In this speedy decline, you state that the list is not "overly promotional"; however the G11 criteria is actually, "Pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Given that this list does nothing but promote the line ("exclusively promote") and explicitly fails wp:NOTCATALOG ("would need to be fundamentally rewritten"), I think this is a perfect example of a G11 list. Also, these toys/models are thoroughly covered at other articles already, so no information is lost by deleting the article other than the company's wikified catalog. NJGW ( talk) 04:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
How can I add a synonym for the Brüel & Kjær article on Wikipedia. Since the title of the article includes Danish end German lettering, including an alternative title for the article would help many people find the article...people who may not have a Danish keyboard. Since the article is posted on the English version of Wikipedia, the title should also appear in an English alternative (Bruel & Kjaer). Is there any way to add synonyms for the title and key words for searches? Thank you again, for all your assistance in becoming familiar with the world of Wikipedia. Kasper Broue ( talk) 12:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I encourage you to respond to comments about your keep vote. Tim meh ! 00:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
FYI the follwing also exists Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Shrewsbury Snowfight of February 3rd. ttonyb1 ( talk) 21:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The decision taken by certain members of the wikipedia not to discuss their plans to delete this article on the talk page shows a distinct disregard for fellow members of the community. An article is being prepared for the local paper which doubtless would have been added to the reference in due course (this was a significant event, not only for the schools but also due to the injuries and general disruption caused), had members not acted in such haste. I expect the article will reappear presently.-- Daniel Greenwood 03.02.2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.159.22 ( talk) 22:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
You were wondering why I wanted to have the article sequence rule, which I created, deleted... so, it turns out that I screwed up. I didn't realize that this topic was already covered by the page Cahn-Ingold-Prelog priority rules, which I didn't discover until much later. Also, although this rule is supposed to have five sub-rules, I am no longer confident that they are as I have written them - I really screwed up, I didn't even consult the references that I supplied, instead I was told these rules by word of mouth (seriously!) Essentially the article has no meaningful purpose and I'm embarrassed by my mistakes, so I'd like it deleted. Bbi5291 ( talk) 03:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC) OK, the best thing to do in this case seems to be to redirect the article to Cahn-Ingold-Prelog priority rules, which I just did, though it doesn't take an admin. . It's a meaningful search term, and the redirect will save the next guy from doing the same thing again. As a general rule, it's theway to handle accidental duplicates. If you though of an alternate wording, so will someone else DGG ( talk) 03:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
U-got mail..-- Hu12 ( talk) 18:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I see you just delete this - it was on its third incarnation. Are there guidelines on how many times a page is re-created before it is protected? pablo hablo. 18:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, could you perhaps have a look at the discussion at this AfD? There is a new user there and the citation data he gives are like nothing I have ever seen. I don't really know what to make of this and your advice will be appreciated. Thanks. -- Crusio ( talk) 23:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
As you probably remember, last spring we started work on the "Geography and places" branch of Wikipedia's Outline of knowledge. (WikiProject Lists of basic topics has been renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge). The geography branch is in the form of a set of outline pages including one for every present-day nation or state in the world. That's 247 pages! This has been a huge undertaking, involving dozens of editors using advanced wiki-tools.
These pages have come a long way, and it won't be long before the whole set is complete enough to be moved to article space into the encyclopedia for the benefit of all. But there's still a lot of work left, and we could use all the help we can get!
While some editors prefer to work on one country at a time, most of our team members take on a particular entry and complete it across all the pages. This has come to be our standard type of task. To facilitate this process, we apply tools such as AutoWikiBrowser, Linky, and WikEd, all of which can be used to process a large number of pages in various (direct or indirect) ways.
In case you are interested in what we've been up to, here's a progress report:
Lately, development has been slow but continuous:
On our recruiting initiative, Penubag has done a fantastic job on the images for the awards we'll be using for our project's collaborations and contests. We now have 3 awards: a medal, a trophy, and a race ribbon. They all look tight. The trophy needs a small adjustment, but other than that, all 3 award images are complete and ready to use to create awards with.
Spartaz has warned us of (threatened to take) G4 (speedy delete) action if we run a competition that resembles the previously deleted Awards Center page. So whatever we do, any contests we run must differ substantially from the methods used there.
One type of competition I've been exploring is "edit racing". I'm in the process of working the bugs out of this concept - the first race didn't work as expected - you see, because we only had an award for first place, so the opponent didn't think it worthwhile to continue once it was clear who the winner would be. And since editors are in different time zones and usually need to start the race at different times, we need to base winning on personal start times - he who completes his assigned edits in the least time (rather than first), wins. And last but not least is quality control. What good is racing if the participants' edits are ripe with errors? So I'll be exploring possibilities such as using a referee (assigned to oversee a particular race), having participants watching each other for errors to knock them back, etc. I'm not sure yet.
Rich Farmbrough has been applying his bot expertise to filling in blanks in the country outlines (the population and area entries). I'm amazed at the number of edits he pumps out each day on a myriad of projects - ours makes up but a small time slice of his activity, and yet he has saved us many hours of manual work. Perhaps we should look into how he gets so much done. :)
Zlerman has chosen to work on specific outlines, and has taken on Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. He also has been keen on noticing and reporting design issues pertaining to the whole set of country outlines. Keep up the good work!
Highfields is in charge of capitals, adding them to all the outlines. He is also our first race winner. Check out the award on his user pages.
In case you didn't know, this project has expanded to include work on any and all sets of pages represented on the country outlines. Once the set of country outlines go live (in article space), traffic will likely increase for all the links included on them. The quality and usefulness of those pages will reflect heavily on the country outlines. The outlines, which are essentially lists of links, are only as good as the links they present, and therefore we've branched out to solve the biggest problems with those as well. So far, we've taken on:
Blackadam2 and Thehelpfulone have been helping out with the "demographics of" pages mentioned above.
And we have a couple speed addicts (addicted to wiki-velocity, not drugs)...
Both Robert Skyhawk and Thehelpfulone prefer (and excel at) simple AWB search/replaces. Robert hasn't actually joined our team yet, but he has been helping out quite a bit from the sidelines (via the WP:AWB/Tasks page. Unfortunately, there has recently been a non-AWB chore that has been holding things up on the AWB front - an edit to all the headings which had to be reverted before too many new edits were made, because any new edits would make the reversion more difficult. The headings have been restored, so now the way is clear for AWB operations, and there are many search/replace tasks in the queue. AWB assignments have started again!
There's a similar bottleneck on the "Demographics of" pages (the "keying" mentioned above), but that's almost cleared too. :)
With my internet access somewhat crippled as of late, I've been finding it difficult to keep up with you guys. However, I expect to be accessing a Linky-capable workstation on a faster server (I'm on it right now, as you can probably tell from my contributions list for the past couple of days), and so I should really pick up speed. Feels goooooood. :)
Recruiting has been a bit slow (but steady), due in part to my crippled access, and because we've been waiting for the images for the awards to be completed. I expect the team to grow more rapidly as the bottlenecks are removed.
Well that's what's been happenin', and here's what's in the pipeline...
We've got a long list of entries that need to be completed across all the outlines and related page sets. If you would like to dive in with advanced wiki-tools to process this whole set of pages on one or more tasks, drop me a note!
As for me, I'm about to begin work on a set of lists that corresponds to all the standard links on the country outlines, and these will be presented on the Topic outline of countries which will be organized exactly like the country outlines. Aside from being an extremely useful navigation aid, it will allow editors to easily see the state of country coverage on Wikipedia - each list will be one link-set, and each list can be used with our wiki-tools to process the pages listed. I'll provide you with a link once I get up to speed on this.
In the meantime, keep in touch!
Cheers,
The Transhumanist 00:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
_Housecalls
You marked the article we had put up quickly as blatent advertising and spam. The problem here is that our competitor has a page up just like that and is is going fine for them. The next problem is that relevant information is going to be put into that page about the court case that Geek Squad had against us, and we won. The page is informational, just like theirs. If all of our competitors get to put things up, so should we. Especially when our page is going to actually be informative about multiple companies who have pages up on wikipedia already. I do believe that the court case and other things like it apply here. It is something that should be recorded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.139.6 ( talk) 15:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
where I come from, The Boston Globe is considered a reputable source. You say the interviews seem entirely derived from press releases, and yet, there are quotes from both sides (Geek Housecalls and Geek Squad) which is certainly atypical of a press release issued by either party in litigation. Further, there was no press release. The Boston Globe reporter discovered the suit during a routine scan of court documents (digging for dirt)and contacted Geek Housecalls and Geek Squad independently to formulate his story. This story was originally published on the front page of the print edition business section. It is, of course,now only available online in BG archives. -- 98.217.230.166 ( talk) 03:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Not asking you to write the article for me, but can you offer suggestions as to how to clarify? I thought having references was how clarity was achieved. Am I better to quote the Globe article? Thanks-- Atrask ( talk) 12:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
You might want to take a look here [3]. RMHED . 02:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
And I thought of four different ones, & they each seem sufficient. I think I will protect as well, just in case. And, for that matter, block. DGG ( talk) 03:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I know there is little reason for you to be following the mediation discussions regarding The Man Who Would Be Queen, but there is something going on for which I would appreciate your input.
The mediator (SlimVirgin) appears to be of the philosophy that in her role as mediator, her interpretations of WP policies (and their grey areas) supercede the consensuses of multiple noticeboard discussions. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
As I said on the mediation page, overturning consensus does not appear to me to be in line with how WP works. I posed the point here, and any input would be appreciated.
— James Cantor ( talk) 14:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, the only thing I'd say I wanted to hear was an outside opinion. (If/when I am incorrect, I'd prefer to know sooner rather than later.) Nonetheless, if what you mean by what you said at the beginning is that the COI-editors should step aside, then I do agree...and the mediation appears to be talking about every issue but that one despite that that was the issue we brought to mediation in the first place.
— James Cantor (
talk) 16:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
You commented on that page that you had proposed a modification on a talk page, but I do not see anything. If your proposal was either to find the same concept under another name (I do not see one just yet) or to treat various applications &c. of cubic restoring force then I absolutely agree. - Eldereft ( cont.) 18:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I found exerpts of reviews for Handbook of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome from the publisher so it is likely somewhat biased. [10]. I don't know how to handle or describe this without doing original research. Advice? Thanks. Ward20 ( talk) 19:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I just noticed that someone has moved the page John Morrison and The Miz to Dirt Sheet Duo. That is one of their nicknames. This move was undiscussed. It won't let me move it back because there has been edit history at John Morrison and The Miz. Hope you can help! Thanks, Genius 101 Guestbook 00:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I merged rather than deleted. Bearian ( talk) 21:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
But Malcolm Schosha's at it again. He followed Untwirl to
Rachel Corrie, despite the
repeated warnings against edit-warring against him, and is now reverting him both by proxy (
PR then
myself), and then
directly reverted him later on. That was in the space of three hours, and he's now posted
this threat to demand that his reverts be restored.
To my knowledge he had no prior involvement at this page, and he only began making token attempts to "discuss" his repeated removal of one side's arguments well-after the fact. Which of these two leads is genuinely NPOV is still being debated, I agree. But I believe his actions at the page are wikistalking rather than good-faith attempts at debate. arimareiji ( talk) 23:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for being defensive; I am training to be a professional mathematician, and didn't want anybody (particularly future colleagues) seeing it to think I'd expressed a negative opinion when one wasn't meant. Ray ( talk) 06:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC) -- all OK here DGG ( talk) 06:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
How do you find that the article of The Dynasty is related to a company? It is used to describe a new private building in Hong Kong. If it is deleted, I think Vision City should be also deleted because The Dynasty is the phase 2 development of Vision City. Also, there are many photos to support the article and I don't think the article is useless. Please look it clearly before you deleted it! If you don't know the article, it doesn't mean it should be removed. Ricky@36 ( talk) 03:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm finding your comment here difficult to parse. Is this what you intended to write? Tim Vickers ( talk) 23:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Please see the above page as there has been a change in mediator and state whether or not you accept the new mediator. Regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
You have asked for this page to be RfDed. However this page is not a REDIRECT page. Please delete as requested. Regards, JohnI ( talk) 09:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you please expand your argument with a comment on my nom statement, rather than Lugnuts' faulty assumption. I said it was a copy of part of an existing Teluga list with a POV problem. Mandsford's comment didn't really address my concerns. - Mgm| (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello DGG. About that AfD, you're misinterpreting what I wrote. I certainly could protect the page and would have done that had it not occurred to me that this article shouldn't even exist in the first place. Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 22:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Theon. I don't think it's reasonable to call him a "unit head." There are hundreds if not thousands of comparably-ranked managers at NASA—at least 250 from his section alone. Thanks for your consideration. Cool Hand Luke 03:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You have asked for this page to be RfDed. However this page is not a REDIRECT page. Please delete as requested. Regards, JohnI ( talk) 09:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you please expand your argument with a comment on my nom statement, rather than Lugnuts' faulty assumption. I said it was a copy of part of an existing Teluga list with a POV problem. Mandsford's comment didn't really address my concerns. - Mgm| (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi I have added a Book citation , and was wondering if its O.K to ask you to remove the template You had put ? Hope its O.K I am askink , (Iam quite new to all this... Kind regards -- Avner Strauss ( talk) 19:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks , Fipple is the corect term and a standart among whistle collectors and makers for the back part of a whistle's mouthpiece ( Mostly made of wood in Brass whistles ),nipples have to do with some old Hunting guns or loading equipment. The quotes marks are O.K I was wondering maybe just use '...' ??, as I did in other whistle makers. The F L Johnson is certainly a great addition !! ! Thanks took me a while to find who added. The adresses are in Sheffield. There is a Printed brochure about Sheffield Arm accesories makers,& exhibition published, I gave my copy but it has a lot more info, mostly about flasks and reloading tools and amunition. Glad its good enough to stand now it can be improved . Thanks for advice I will try to follow . -- Avner Strauss ( talk) 07:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
A. Are you a girl? B. If so, will you marry me?
I wasn't even going to get into the content question of what writers should have bibliographies, etc... but to be told that deleting "Once wrote an article for maxim (date and title unknown)" had ruined a bibliography made me feel like i was taking crazy pills. At any rate, you were a ray of sanity in my day. Go well. Bali ultimate ( talk) 00:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC) A. no: my name is on my user page B. I'm married already. But I'm not the least insulted about either part. DGG ( talk) 00:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah...actually two of the ones you picked up on were the two I was least sure about. I'm still a bit new to this whole AFD thing, though...thanks for the advice. -- User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/150.101.115.53 Cluebot has undone it, but recommend blocking this account or IP or whatever it is you do at this stage. JJJ999 ( talk) 22:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to revise the Avalanche article. I spent some time last night making changes which were then reverted by ClueBot. I tried to notify ClueBot of a false positive but the reporting page is not functional. I'd also like to split the topic into two or more separate categories. Most avalanches do not involve people ... therefore a lot of the information in the article is biased toward human-avalanche interaction. This should be cleaned up.
You can examine my changes to the article and you'll see that they're not vandalism. Not sure if I should even bother at this point as Wikipedia makes it SO much work to contribute. No wonder the Avalanche article is so poorly written; most avalanche professionals won't deal with this sort of hassle. I'm happy to give it one more try. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somerandomicicle ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
No need to ever contact me off line from my perspective. I'm a big believer in daylight. Best Bali ultimate ( talk) 15:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It's simply that the thing was a WP:MADEUP candidate and I thought that the A7 applied. Did you want to AfD it? -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 19:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, recieved a msg from Dlohcierekim about an article i just posted. i'm on a contract with this company at the current time and felt necessary to post a bit about them (pls ignore username, bad choice as my intention was to only post up this one article about them). I've taken what was on their About page and trimmed the language to be as neutral as possible (imo of course). This organization is pretty important in the history of education in BC. I understand conflict of interest, but feel this group is fairly well known in education circles and is of value.
Please let me know what parts do not meet requirements and I can have them removed, and possibly find some more references about the history over the last 100 years.
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Openschoolbc ( talk • contribs) 19:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It keeps getting marked as conflict of interest so just ahead and delete the article please. I'd rather have nothing there then have it marked as conflict of interest. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Openschoolbc ( talk) 19:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
See Captive orcas, an attempt to salvage content from the set of articles flagged for deletion. Most of the {{main}} links lead to articles in AfD. Monuments, I like them if dramatic and equestrian. Bus routes, don't think so. Individual Orcas? Aymatth2 ( talk)
Trolling the AfD list can be depressing. I tend to skip the hominids. I just did National Referral Hospital (Thimphu) to clear my head, and a couple of related ones. Not a great article, but the first and only one for a hospital in Bhutan. The first and only one. Is this a well-balanced encyclopedia? Aymatth2 ( talk) 02:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Reluctantly agree. The mix of articles in the English Wikipedia presumably fairly accurately reflect the interests of both editors and readers. That will not stop me writing the odd article nobody is likely to read. Loch Alsh! :~) Aymatth2 ( talk) 03:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
What has been concerning me lately - and I have only got addicted to Wikipedia lately - is not so much imbalance or triviality as insensitivity and outright bias. I got into debates recently about ‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib, Nestorian Stele, Fred Shapiro and others where it just didn't feel right. The decisions were probably correct based on the rules, but they left me feeling really uneasy. Something wrong here. I am going to spend more time writing new articles, avoid the AfD list. Mega Rice Project (Kalimantan) needs a whole lot of work, and a bunch of related articles. All sorts of great books just have stubs. There is so much to write about. I am much more comfortable as an essayist than a critic. Signing off. Aymatth2 ( talk) 03:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
My mistake. I'll go fix it. Thanks for the note. -- Rrburke( talk) 03:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't the article belong at St. John Fisher College instead? Cheers, Enigma msg 06:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was arguing that judgement was correct; the user in question had been kind enough to do some copyediting for me and had changed "judgement" to "judgment". Ironholds ( talk) 04:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I have created a Neutral section for those who agree with the premise but not the method, or some other aspect, which may be altered following talkpage discussion. Perhaps you would wish to review your !vote under the changed circumstances? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for takingthe time to read this. I'm referencing the proposed deletion of the Ernest Sipes picture/article deletion. To be honest, I'm really not that great with computers, but know Mr. Spes personally and have contributed to his page. At the University of Alaka, where there are professors studying the Russian American Company, Sipes work is being quoted and his book is in use at UAF and at the bookstore. I contributed the pictures used to illustrate this person's Wiki page and firmly believe he and his work deserves to be here. Of course, you have the right to delete the pictures and articles, but just because they are not referenced 100% correctly seems a little arbitary to me. I for one would like to see it left like it is. Contact me if there is anything else I can do. Respectfully, Frank Bentner, 3.5 Mile, North Douglas Hwy, Juneau, Alaska —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Bentner ( talk • contribs) 23:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thanks for spelling/grammar suggestions. Ikip ( talk) 05:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I fail to see any indication of importance, unless "global finance company" counts... – ukexpat ( talk) 05:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Why deleted? I wrote the article - sourced information on his fight, and link ot his boxrec record showing his debut as a professional boxer. If there was an issue of BLP then it should have been fixed, not the article deleted. I think you should restore and use AfD if required.-- Vintagekits ( talk) 17:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I've actually always been against machine translation for the very reason you note (except as an extreme last resort, if necessary.) Translation templates are one thing - I like them and think they're useful in directing readers to another possible source of material for an article. But that's because in the end they rely on human translators to do the final job.
If there were some way to dump the translation into an intermediate spot where it could be looked over, now...but that defeats most of the purpose, I'm afraid. -- User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I think most users are intelligent enough to copy edit any very bad mistranslation anyway or at least leave out any sentences or phrases that didn't make sense. I think you underestimate many of our users on here, They want a high quality encyclopedia as much as we do. Even if worse came to worse and they did, readers afterwards can clearly see what has happened and eventually it will be cleaned up. Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the removal of the PROD at all, but just a question - the book is a finalist in a competition, it didn't actually win anything. I did verify that before PRODing it. Is that enough to establish notability? WP:BK says that the book must have won an award. I didn't think the work met any of the other criteria (substantial independent coverage for example). The assertion of notability is obviously grounds for exclusion from WP:SPEEDY but I think the PROD was correct. Anyway, I don't want to get the PROD reinstated or anything, rather just trying to understand the process and making sure I'm not getting these wrong :) § FreeRangeFrog 20:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just got your message regarding Boston Public so I thought I should answer here since most other editors don't bother to see if I have answered on my talk page. Those articles weren't written by me, they were all entered in the same page so I just separated them. I have no actual interest in them (and it a was a long time ago I did this), but if you want I can somehow merge them all into one again when I find time; I'm quite busy doing other articles. Thanks for informing me. Dmarex ( talk) 19:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Useful comment on Addbot adding orphan tags to articles, that the tag is not useful to the reader. I forget that's what's so irritating about some of the tags, when they do nothing for the reader. Should just be a category, not an article topper. -- KP Botany ( talk) 06:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
No DGG. It is not who you asked about. I was just "bouncing around" the other day (I forget where) and noticed that there were alot of requests pertaining to speedy deletes (Re:the subject matter) on a certain usertalk. But I can't remember who or where I "bounced" ....Nuff said?-- Buster7 ( talk) 08:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Johnny Cash Sun Records discography this article includes very detailed content on his recordings with that label. It's getting a lot of delete votes, but the same information is not (and should not) be included in the main Johnny Cash discography article. I'm also confused on Michael Wines. A New York Times bureau chief in high profile postings like Moscow and South Africa, as well as having been a controversial figure in his own right. Why is this getting only delete votes? I've been avoiding AfD and working in article space and came on these through another route, but I don't understand what standards these articles aren't meeting. Can you illuminate me? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 22:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a debate going on at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 11#Assyrian Christian Stele → Nestorian Stele where I would invite your comment. It is a continuation of previous discussions, all of which have been somewhat inconclusive. Some editors want to use an invented term (OR) instead of a pejorative term (NPOV). Two policies in conflict. Maybe you can contribute a sane viewpoint. Thanks, Aymatth2 ( talk) 14:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I have fixed the articles so they use the common term, but with a note that it is technically incorrect. Think that works. Aymatth2 ( talk) 19:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I removed the template you put and explained my reasons on the talk page. Please reply on the talk page. Thanks! -- Marra ( talk) 16:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Sabre ( talk) 21:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC) |
I wonder if you are able to comment on the following principle, relevant to the Ayn Rand dispute - see the talk page, and see WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand. The problem is as follows: William Vallicella, who is a recognised Kant scholar, has published something in a blog post about Rand having completely misunderstood Kant. Someone has objected that while Vallicella is a recognised Kant scholar, he has not published on Rand in reliable sources (a blog post not being considered RS), and so the citation cannot be allowed.
This is the reverse burden of proof problem - it is hard to find scientific sources that discuss pseudoscience. In such cases I believe it is legitimate to source from non-promotional descriptions of pseudoscience that can only be obtained from second- and third-party sources and not peer-reviewed.
The dispute also has affinities with the special pleading problem - that pseudoscientists (or in this case, pseudoacademics) can object that the academics are not expert in the pseudoacademic subject. This is of course an absurd argument, and if allowed unchallenged, would open the floodgate - any advocate of any fringe view could object that the advocates of scientific method simply didn't understand the pseudoscientific 'theory' being advanced.
I appreciate you are not an expert on philosophy (at least I assume not). But this has little to do with philosophy, and everything to do with the need to establish a precedent in Wikipedia policy. Because science is generally silent about pseudoscience, it is difficult to reliably source scientific views on pseudoscience. In such a case, we should be allowed to source views of established scientists or academics or scholars, from any available sources (giving precedence to reliable independent sources where possible).
Principle: "if an established scientist, scholar or academic has made statements about a pseudoscientific or pseudo-academic subject, then whatever the source of that statement, it should be allowed as a reliable source, if no other sources are available." Peter Damian ( talk) 12:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Footnote 7 in the Kant aricle is not supportable:
As written, it's an overgeneralization that has no place in the lede.
I recognize the problem. The general problem is met better by expanding the nature of publications recognized in a much less prescriptive way than your Principle DGG ( talk) 16:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for that very full reply. A detailed reply below. You are quite right about 'some philosophers'. I do have more citations, I will locate them and put them in.
Peter Damian ( talk) 17:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I see you added this. Is there a procedure to determine if the tag is warranted or not? The editor that started the article ( Special:Contributions/Mrhaven715) isn't active on it any more. Xasodfuih ( talk) 23:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
look a bit deeper into precarity dgg. the speedy should happen, it's actually the second speedy of the same copy of the same page. -- Buridan ( talk) 23:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Dig deep, indeed! Harrypotter ( talk) 00:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I have placed a note here has it has taken me so long to reply to your note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject buses/UK bus route quality drive. I have replied there now, apologies for taking so long, I didn't notice! Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Incompatible Food Triad isn't my article. I just corrected some errors in it, but I don't really care whether it lives or dies. You should bring the notice to the creator of the article, not me. Thanks.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 17:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean to say that any secondary school that ever existed, for any amount of time, in any capacity is notable? Ref: Maslow-Toffler School of Futuristic Education -- Lucas20 ( talk) 20:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind taking another look at this AFD since you probably saw a vandalized version of the article; and the cleaned-up version is not so bad (though it needs work) ? Regards. Abecedare ( talk) 05:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG. Could you please remind me the term (it's something like, but not exactly, picket fencing, or gate posting) for when an editor or group of editors creates a group of articles with linking within them to make them appear notable and referenced when they are not? I'm drawing a blank. Tx Bongo matic 01:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Philogo and I both agree to delete that article. He placed a tag that was removed and now I have. There are two articles which suffice for this subject matter (therefore "title" should really point you to the justification sufficeintly). Could you do us a favor and tag that thing for deletion? Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard ( talk) 08:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
So.... In April 2008 diff you called this film article "an acceptable stub", and encouraged those considering deletion to themselves try looking for sources. Well. No one bothered and that stub sat as stub until about 6 hours ago. Do you think it looks any better now? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You may well have forgotten this, but I see you deleted an article on Hank Janson back in 2007. Looks like the problems were notability and references. Having searched for an article on Janson and not found one, I am planning to create one. I can use sources like Bestsellers: Popular Fiction Since 1900 by Clive Bloom (Macmillan) and Simon Gray's memoirs. As for notability, he sold five million books in about ten years; essentially a British answer to Micky Spillane. I'm aware "Janson" was a pseudonym, ultimately used by more than one writer, but I can handle that in the same way Wikipedia handles Ellery Queen. If there are problems I've overlooked (or if you honestly don't care), please let me know - thanks. KD Tries Again ( talk) 22:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again There is no reason why you should not write an article on him. there seems to have been some confusion about whom it referred to.: it is listed as being one of the pen names used by Michael Moorcock, which may or may not be correct. The contents at one point was "Hank Janson is the nom de plume of British writer Stephen Daniel Frances, born in Lambeth, London, in 1917." . DGG ( talk) 01:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Right: Frances created the pseudonym and established Janson as a best-seller. Other writers used it later. But if we can handle Ellery Queen and Sexton Blake, there must be a way to handle this. Thanks. KD Tries Again ( talk) 22:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
I have done everything I can and it does not seem to be good enough for some people. Could you please take a look at the Ghostly Talk article and possibly help me on what needs to be added so the article is not deleted. I have added so much to establish notability and it is not good enough for some. Please help. Gtscottl 06:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
A Nobody
My talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Would you be willing to comment at the discussion here? We are discussing a revision of this featured list of works, from something like this to this. I would appreciate your input. Thanks. Awadewit ( talk) 22:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm currently looking over a long article about a work of fiction that was published in epistalary form in a free weekly. The series received no secondary coverage beyond a passing mention in a gossip column about its author and a blog post. I'm looking for guidelines for assessing the notability of articles, particularly ones that might diverge from general notability standards. The article is Dining Late with Claude La Badarian. Look over it if you're interested, but what i'm really after is policy/guidelines that will aid my decision in whether to nominate it for deletion (and please forgive any typos; just got six stitches on one of my fingers). Bali ultimate ( talk) 17:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
If you mean, on Wikipedia , you may be looking for List of works by William Monahan DGG ( talk) 14:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG
Could you please have a look at Jack Cover and Blackwater Worldwide? The former is what I had hoped to be a noncontroversial move of John Higson Cover, Jr. to his most common appellation (usually given without quotes around it. The latter is per a discussion now at Talk:Xe (company)#Requested move. The consensus is that the article should remain under Blackwater for now.
Thanks, Bongo matic 01:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
←Fully agree, and I think the more important question is how it's referred to within the article. I wish there were more complete coverage of the name change. It would be helpful to know if this is really a change in legal entity name (and if so, what entity or entities) or more of a change in branding (e.g., DBAs, etc.). It would also be good to know if this is a future change or one that has already occurred. It is unhelpful that the company's web sites haven't changed at all. Bongo matic 06:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I've responded to your comments. Tim Vickers ( talk) 16:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw your note, but thanks for pinging me anyhow. I had considered a merge, but I wasn't sure how good an idea that was. WP:MERGE doesn't talk about folding content whose notability is suspect into larger (notable) articles; I mean, if the church was important enough to be mentioned in the town article, I would have thought sources would suggest that. I know we often throw content like fictional characters into lists, but that's a bit different and I was hesitant about applying the same standard (arguably the characters are supposed to be important to understanding the work as a whole.) If you feel a redirect from the church to the town is warranted, by all means go ahead. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 01:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Google_Scholar#Citation_.28example.29_for_erroneous_additional_search_results Affected are mostly papers that have been published a year ago or less. That's why for renowned scientists, who have a number of frequently cited "old" papers, the affected results appear at the end of the list. 84.163.117.6 ( talk) 22:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
An eager new editor, probably a student there, has tried to expand the article. He/she started by cut-and-paste from the college catalog, and I reverted all that; but this is a good-faith person, and I'd appreciate your help there to give 'em a fair shake. Take a look at the article's talk page, and the new kids' as well. -- Orange Mike | Talk 01:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG! I apologize for deleting a valid article. In general, I am very careful about A7 and only delete clear-cut cases. This seemed like a clear-cut A7, but apparently not (I had not read WP:PROF in the past, never really had to deal with articles about professors). Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Ynhockey ( Talk) 22:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up about Sigma Delta, DGG. For future reference though, was I correct in closing the AfD as speedy keep? Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi David -- thought I'd throw this to you when/if you have a moment. I found the above in the backlog and I'm really not sure what to make of it. While I know some journals have a degree of inherent notability, I'm not finding much that would allow us to expand this article. That said, I'm also not sure if it's meant to be about the journal, because it mentions submissions, or the org that produces the journal. Thoughts? StarM 02:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
This is my current project to save. I saw you are a "keep" at the AfD. Can you help start the fix? Bearian ( talk) 16:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I think there is some sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry going on here. A brand new account showed up and disputed the tags on the articles. Thanks for trying to help salvage the article. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 19:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I removed the COI tags from both articles since I could not see anything in them that appeared to be written from a non-neutral standpoint. If you have specific examples of what sentences indicate a conflict please tag them so that they can be changed. Additionally, the articles appear to be well referenced. Do you have specific examples of what in the article does not appear to be properly referenced? ( User talk:Udolph0s) —Preceding undated comment was added on 20:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC).
the place for this is the talk page of the article. But in brief:
DGG ( talk) 20:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey; turns out you were right after all :). In a legal context it is apparently always spelt judgment; sorry about all that. Ironholds ( talk) 02:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Is not Open Access News. http://openaccessblog.com/ is a well-meaning but not notable blog. Fences and windows ( talk) 23:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
...my small correction :). Seraphim ♥ 23:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I lack perspective by being immersed in medical school culture, but in my experience his book is a widely known and essential resource, and his story is well known to medical professionals. Please review my hangon justification on the talk page for more information on his notability; I added it about the time the article was deleted, so you may not have seen it. I also must say that I don't appreciate your scolding tone; I created the article in good faith and you should assume such based on my record if nothing else. - Draeco ( talk) 21:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dale Dubin. 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. Draeco ( talk) 17:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG. Thanks for your input [14] on the possible deletion of this article. I did search on google first (e.g. [15]), I should have made that clear. As a relative newcomer I'd appreciate a third opinion on the notability discussions going on on that article and on the related self-relocation by the same editor. Would it be appropriate to nominate both at AfD now? Ferkel ( talk) 22:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey DGG - thanks for the feedback in my RfA. I've left you a comment. Happy editing to you. Flying Toaster 04:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
What do you think about IC 5357 and the half dozen or so stubs like it? Are all galaxies notable - there's likely to be "billions and billions" of them per Carl Sagan - even if we can never write more thant what's in that article - which is basically where to look for the place from the Earth? Are all stars- "billions and billions" of them in each galaxy, most likewise without much more than their location to be said for them? Are all asteroids or other balls of ice and rock out there (or down here)? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, The Great Asteroid Stub debate has started again here, and input from someone with awareness of the administrative problems of swarms of minimal stubs might be helpful. Alai (who carried the aministrative flag previously) seems inactive of late, so I saw your note in Archive 9, and thought you might join in, or perhaps you could alert some others with useful insight? I believe we can provide the essential information in a table format (with thousands of entries, NB), with links out to serious articles. But I hate to trash their creator's (Captain Panda) efforts by mass deletion, beyond what is really necessary to alleviate the problems these stubs actually create. I would really like to bring this discussion to a satisfactory actionable conclusion this time.
Thanks, Wwheaton ( talk) 23:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I suspect that the creator of these articles has a serious conflict of interest: mainly because he/she asserts copyright over the film still to Colour Blind, which stongly implies involvement with the film; also becase of the relatedness of the user's contributions (see [16] for example). Can you advise: is this enough to go on? If so, should they go on AfD again? And is there a way of listing the three together? Thanks Hopsyturvy ( talk) 14:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The crux of your argument is that he had two notable cases. The AT&T case went in the books at some point for whatever the verdict was, so that's fine. However, the Saudi case was thrown out and never went to trial, so it never was a case. It was a potential case that never happened (according ot the sources PhilBridger found initially). That potentiality was also the rationale for the article's creation ("He's gonna be big when this hits!" was basically what the creator said). So, you might want to either reconsider or explain the position you take in the discussion, because I don't see it, and some other folks don't either. MSJapan ( talk) 17:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I split off your added contradiction in WP:Wikipuffery, and I'm letting you know that someone else has nominated the resulting fork for deletion. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiAntipuffery. THF ( talk) 19:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Altough it claims to be a college, it is not accredited in Switzerland by the OAQ( oaq.ch). IACBE accrediation doesn't mean anything since it is not recognized by the CHEA (www.chea.org). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecognized_accreditation_associations_of_higher_learning The information about this college on Wikipedia is misleading and self-promotional. 77.58.151.156 ( talk) 13:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
One needs to distinguish between being accredited or being member of an association such as the "Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs" (ACBSP). A "member" is an institution that has paid annual fees (see: http://www.acbsp.org/index.php?mo=st&op=ld&sid=s1_020acc&stpg=25) but is not accredited. The more prestigious AACSB states following: Membership does not confer AACSB accreditation and should not be interpreted as achieving accreditation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.151.156 ( talk) 13:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey DGG, there is a guy ( User:NFLOWNAGE) traipsing around making unconstructive edits all around. I put a warning on his talk page after the first one, he has made about 5 more (all have been reverted by others), but they haven't warned him or anything. What should happen here? SMSpivey ( talk) 07:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thanks again for your comments, what troubles me, (given that i subscribe to the "The advanced human aircraft hypothesis" ( Ufology), is that avowed military users are following a similar modus operandi, in this case. (then they call it a personal attack.) this is more of an ad hoc coverup, than a conspiracy.
i suppose i shouldn't wave the red flag of area 58 before them, the problem is, it's in the NYTimes. then the tenditious cutting down 'not authoritative', 'trivial' begins. the longwinded changing of arguments, and not giving an inch, dosn't strike me as good faith either. here we have articles about museums yet to be built, Cold War Museum, civil war forts that no longer exist, Fort Corcoran, but no Area 58. (all in the same neighborhood.) and the problem being, that if i can find it so can any enemy researcher, so it ends up only obscuring the government program from public oversight.
the implication for wiki is that subcultures, with group think, can impose non wiki rules upon specialized parts of wiki, withholding public information. the dissenters are shouted down with specious arguments:
All the quotes say is that this facility is "alleged to be" a satellite downlink station. Even if you choose to ignore the blatant weasel words, that's hardly a big deal, and notability isn't inherited from any notable data which goes through the place. The other citations appear to only mention the site in passing while discussing data which has passed through it
btw, this statement is false.
i've written worse articles, and will continue. how long will it take before they delete it from my userpage? well i will go back to my other articles, where more polite, rational editing prevails. Dogue ( talk) 17:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG, Would you be good enough to review my comment (and the rest of) the DRV for Good Germans. The whole situation is one of the crazier things I've run into, and I trust you to give it a fair hearing. Regards, Cgingold ( talk) 17:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what to do with this one. You tagged it, it was speedied for A7, it was tagged again for G12, I declined that speedy because the first paragraph doesn't seem to be copyvio. The linkfarm in the EL looks like a conceivably interesting list of links, but this really isn't my area and I don't know what we want to do with this article. A7 it again? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 21:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think you fully signed your post at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lu. regards, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
DGG, I have created an article on Hendrik de Wit, based on an article in the Dutch WP (but expanded, referenced, and corrected). As I have a potential (if minor) COI (explained on the article's talk page), I'd appreciate if you could do a quick check to see if all is OK. Thanks. -- Crusio ( talk) 11:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_administrative_assistance_with_whitelist_request_for_Lyrikline.org_page_for_Chirikure_Chirikure The copyright bugaboo is persistent. -- Abd ( talk) 00:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on your chess set post, you got it right. I know you are an Admin, but with respect, most people that are Hall Monitors and Admins are more likely to be Essjay types than say a professional person with a real job. Anyway, I will try to return the favour for you some day. Happy editing and my best regards. Green Squares ( talk) 16:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi DGG- I'm not here to complain, just want to explain my actions. On Hemispherectomy Foundation I removed the proposed deletion tag, based on the fact that I feel it is just as notable as Vitamin C Foundation or Victor Pinchuk Foundation, which have been hanging around for a while and are lacking in quality. I did add another reference source to Hemispherectomy Foundation and do intend to expand it as time allows. Acceptable? Thanks, Paxsimius ( talk) 17:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
This article existed with a timeline as is reproduced on the talk page. This has been converted to plain text consistent with standard encyclopedia formatting. One editor, and I tend to agree, thinks the timeline was a more useful and accesible format for the information. What do you think? Is there a way to have the cake and eat it too? Have you had any experiences with timelines in the past? Clearly it's not standard formatting, but they can be useful and encyclopedic devices me thinks. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
It's a proposal for a CSD noticeboard; debate is over what to use it for. (Not watchlisting because you're way too popular and you'd fill up my watchlist, but feel free to respond on my talk page or elsewhere :) - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 20:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This user is a self-proclaimed sock of his. Here are the socks contributions [ [17]]. I put this in AN/I but since you're clued in.... Thanks Bali ultimate ( talk) 22:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)