User:Dsmdgold/Talk Archive 2007b

Aldor (World of Warcraft)
Just FYI, I wasn't relying on the person portion of A7 at all -- I was relying on the group portion. That's what faction means (at least as far as I know).Erechtheus 23:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I get where you're coming from there, and my intent above wasn't to challenge your position on the decline. I just thought you thought I was nominating it as a person when I meant it as a group. Erechtheus 03:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Tulsa, Oklahoma
If you have a few minutes, could you look over the Tulsa article to help out with shortnening it? I need input from people who aren't already involved in the article. Also, you already are a little familiar with it since you helped review it for FA status. I left a notice on Taskforce Tulsa as well as the Tulsa article's talk page. Thanks. Okiefromokla•talk 18:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Like Suicide (Seether song)
Thanks for changing my to a standard prod...I wasn't paying attention and didn't look after I'd added it. Thanks again! =David ( talk )( contribs ) 03:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Turkey God
Not patent nonsense? It suggests teachers tell students they worship a turkey god. Furthermore it says that it is unconstitutional and illegal for students to ask a teacher what they worship. I really fail to see where there is anything here that isn't Complete bollocks. Improbcat 14:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Browne
Hi there!

I see you deleted the Joseph Browne article. In the form that you found it, it was indeed full of rubbish. If you'd checked through the edit history, however, you would have found that the rubbish was actually vandalism; the article itself (which I wrote) was of a highly respected public figure in Fiji. Granted, he may not be known in the United States or England, but he is a well-known personality in Fiji and often appears in their online newspapers.

Before deleting articles, it is good to check the edit history. It often happens that an article that appears to be rubbish is actually a good article that has been vandalized. The solution is to go though the edit history, find the last "good" version of the article and restore it. You can then delete all of the vandalized edits.

I have restored the article, minus the vandalism.

Please don't take this as a criticism - I've made similar mistakes more often than I'd like to admit. By the way, the Fijian "department" is a bit short-staffed, so if you'd like to contribute Fiji-related material, we'd love to have you on board. David Cannon 23:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

CSD
I disagree that those articles are not patent nonsense. Patent nonsense, or gibberish, or an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content means that there is no information in the page that can be used to create a decent encyclopedia article. In the case of partisan screeds, poor writing, and the various other non-criteria listed in G1, the thing they all have in common is that they can become encyclopediac articles in one rewrite. An article such as Brohnson ("The word Brohnson is definied as; The act of mowig a lawn wearing a straw hat. The sight of a hot-air balloon. To marry without knowledge of the persons past.") isn't going to make more sense with a rewrite. And really, what is an article that simply reads "HE'S THE KIND OF GUY WHO LIKES A FUCK!" if it is not nonsense. Is there anything salvageable there? I think not.

As far as Corri Wicks goes, I didn't consider being on a daytime soap a claim of notability because there is nothing inherent about a daytime soap that means it's notable. For all I know, the soap ran for one episode before it was cancelled, or was a slap-dash mid season replacement show. But I can understand how you could see it as a claim of notability, so I suppose it's one of those borderline articles. Natalie 15:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ill concede that my deletion of Corrine Wicks may have been somewhat hasty, but I still disagree with your approach to G1. I've formed my particular interpretatio of G1 from countless AfD discussions that have been speedied as nonsense, even thoug they may be made up of individually coherent sentences. There's nothing in the criterion that specifies whether coherence is measured by each sentence being individually coherent or by the article as a whole being coherent. You seem to make this determination based on each individual sentence's coherence, with no judgment of the article's coherence as a whole. I tend to look at the article as a whole, and if it is incoherent (despite being made up of individually coherent sentences) I think G1 applies. Natalie 03:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Aurora Barbarians
I deleted the page because at a cursory glance, it appeared to be nonsense. Upon inspection, it still would have qualified for speedy deletion, only it would be WP:CSD. If you'd like me to undelete and re-delete the material with a proper CSD citation, I'd be happy to. Cheers. --MZMcBride 14:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sam Thomas
Hi. Please revisit the article Sam Thomas from which you removed the speedy delete tag. It is clearly a hoax page. If you check the edit history you will see that the author is changing the contents at will. It has no significance. Because you removed the speedy tag I have nominated the article under AfD. WWGB 13:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Sam Thomas
Wow, I didn't expect such a load of nonsense to even make it to VfD. Stranger yet, I thought that the old deletion comments applied equally well to the newer version. You're right, of course, I neglected to check the deleted revision. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Manuscript culture
I've only just noticed this (see talk page also). Useful, but needs some work, not least on the language. I'm off on holiday very soon, so won't be doing anything for 2 weeks. Johnbod 13:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Bird lists
Greetings. I remember that you are the one who created the bird-family headings descriptions, so I wanted to let you know that I am thinking about putting them all into a template now that they have been copy and pasted over Wikipedia so many times. This way, they are all consistent and can be easily updated. A single template could house the whole thing in the form. I think area and count would be optional; they would produce "there are 75 species worldwide and 36 species which occur in Chile", if desired. I think NA birds probably has the most current version to start from. Any thoughts welcome. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 22:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate moral support. Ya, I thought about the tri-level of counting. I can do it in a single template, but it would make it a little more complex. Very doable though; I think it would be worth it. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 00:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:LindisfarneGospels1.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:LindisfarneGospels1.gif, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Susan Chesler
Thank you for the notification. While it seems to me that it is difficult to assert notability in a stub article about a voice-over actress, I think that I will not argue the point. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

weaponhouse
I understand you, ok it wasn't patent nonsense, but the content didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject. If you google weaponhouse, you're going to get 36! results. It's far not enough. Maybe if you would create a Weapon house article and would write its content acccording to our guidelines, it could be ok. I hope it helps. NCurse work 07:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

John Kilduff
Hi Dsmdgold. You speedy deleted John Kilduff, who is host of Let's Paint TV. He is at the help desk asking that Let's Paint TV be restored. I found the following reference on John Kilduff and ask that you consider restoring John Kilduff: --  Jreferee  (Talk) 01:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Snow, Shauna. (August 19, 1990) Los Angeles Times Landscape Artist John Kilduff Goes to the Source. Section: CA-Calendar; Page 103.
 * Frank, Peter. (October 3, 1993) Long Beach Press-Telegram "Reshaping L.A." Offers post-riot optimism; Art review. Section: Life/Style; Page J6 (writing, " In a landscape-cityscape context, no pictures prove more slyly telling than John Kilduff's comically banal rendition of unused Ralphs and Thrifty signs, sitting in a grassy lot amid scattered dumpsters, the South Bay's hills rising in the background.")
 * Zonkel, Phillip. (April 20, 2001) Long Beach Press-Telegram. ''Not so silent auction; Long Beach Museum of Art hopes to raise money with "affordable art for all." Section: Weekend; Page W3.
 * Harvey, Doug. (September 2, 2004) LA Weekly The Joy of Painting Saddam: John Kilduff and Let’s Paint TV.
 * Harvey, Doug. (February 22, 2006) LA Weekly Glossolalia for Dummies. MOCA’s "Painting in Tongues"
 * Crow, Kelly. (August 18, 2006) The Wall Street Journal "Art with a message: Buy this house".
 * Boing Boing (October 4, 2006) Let's Paint, Exercise, and Make Blended Drinks TV!
 * Vice (November 13, 2006) Let's Paint, Exercise and Dress a Chicken.
 * Ferguson, Kevin. (January 16, 2007) Forest Fire Magazine John Kilduff Does Everything.
 * Wolinsky, Ross. (February 26, 2007) Cracked The 7 Most Insane Moments from Cable Access TV.


 * Thanks for the consideration. I agree with you. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 02:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

El Toro Handrail, revisited
Hi, you commented on the last time El Toro Handrail was put up for deletion (here), and had some interesting things to say. I've put it up for deletion again (here), and I'd like you to review the article one more time. ALTON  .ıl  06:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Taschen Book
Hi, I was a bit puzzled at the title you were using until I looked at my copy & saw this is indeed the title on the title page - but not the cover or d/w. I see Taschen themselves call it "Masterpieces of Illumination" - looks like someone in the design department forgot to change the text when doing the English edition to me. I've just noticed the author biography at bottom on the link then contradicts the top of the page. Maybe both versions should be given. It's a great book though - & very cheap for once! Johnbod 14:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Normally of course it should be - I'm switching to: Walther, Ingo F. and Wolf, Norbert, Masterpieces of Illumination (Codices Illustres);  Taschen, Köln; ISBN 382284750X

- on my ref list. It's probably best to include the ISBN given the potential for confusion! Hope the eclipse was good! Johnbod 14:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Hellmer
Thanks, I was considering doing that myself. -- But | seriously | folks   02:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My understanding of A7 is rapidly evolving. I do understand your interpretation, but yes it differs from mine.  It will be helpful to see what the consensus is here. --  But | seriously | folks   02:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Elliot Cho
Hi, the article was completely unsourced and poorly written (no real content), there's no assertion of notability. Thus I think it meets the criteria. PeaceNT 15:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You might like to see my reply to your comment on PeaceNT's talk page, and then my discussion on Talk:Elliott Cho.&mdash; Timotab Timothy (not Timdagnabbit!) 15:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * David, "starred in a number of movies, TV shows and, commercials" is not a satisfactory claim to notability in itself, inasmuch as there is a gap between major and minor roles. If an article doesn't state which roles they have, only which films they appear in (followed by incomprehensible text), then notability is not asserted. Perhaps I could have used CSD A3, since there was no meaningful content, except for the lead sentence. My opinion of the page stands, it meets speedy criteria. Regards, PeaceNT 16:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read the deleted version of Elliot Cho and I completely accede to PeaceNT's decision. I also did a quick research on this individual, there seems considerable number of sources but none of them is verifiable. Moreover, Dsmdgold, I think you are getting trouble with WP:SELF. Your opinion on notability is largely based on a sentence from the article itself, which wasn't verified by any reliable sources. The article stating that "starred in a number of movies, TV shows and, commercials" doesn't lead to the conclusion that this person is notable because he starred, not just appeared. Once more, this assertion of notability is absolutely wrong, for no sources can be found to backup that information. Remember that this article may even relate to WP:COI and the editor (a kid, perhaps!) exaggerated himself, violating NPOV, thus undoubtedly the delete action was warranted. @pple 04:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, according to this person's modest notability, the word "starred" is totally misused. @pple 04:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Re.: John bellamy
Hello; while I agree you're right strictly technically (although I don't know what we should make of something as "John Doe, president of the United States" (which is a definite claim to notability), let me cite WP:SNOW (and perhaps WP:IAR, although I'm generally loath to do so) as an additional rationale for the deletion, as I don't think the article would have survived an Afd. Feel free to bring this up at WP:DRV if you want. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar 20:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to come back to you so late....although I understand and respect the way you see it, please keep in mind that prodding articles is kind of a soft option (at least IMHO)...once the prod is removed (by the article creator or someone else), you're back to either speedy deletion or an Afd....and as I see that you're deleting also a fair bit of articles, you must have seen the things that creep up as speedies; and let's remember: it's easy to restore the article. Cheers and keep up the good work. Lectonar 16:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Hellmer
You're very kind – I thank you for your comments on my talk page, and I very much appreciate your own efforts in this and in other areas as indicated on your user page. Best, AtomikWeasel 17:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Bible
Sorry- bet you would't have taken 3 goes to get it right! One day I'll try to finish tidying up those categories. I've given Canon table a minor revamp recently; do add anything that occurs. I also linked it to all the ones I could trace. I'm not sure it even was linked before. I've been meaning to reread Calkins et al to see if there is anything to add, but haven't yet. All the best, Johnbod 22:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

PS there is a move proposal on the talk page there. Johnbod 22:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

3rd opinion re. use of images on Bougueareau page?
I'm willing to submit our dispute in consideration for a third opinion if you also feel that it may help the current discussion. Broken Sphere Msg me 01:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll bring it to WP:VA's attention. Now when I first saw the article I thought of pulling the gallery outright myself, but went to the talk page first where I noticed that the issue was only raised for the first time just a week ago. As for the silence implies consent thing - this doesn't mean that down the road someone will not notice issues with an article or other content placed on Wikipedia and bring them up some time afterwards, as I have seen this happen many times. Broken Sphere Msg me 04:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Self-portrait
Hi, I'm giving this a big overhaul, after a merge of two articles, one originally French, the other Russian! I can't find any IM self-portrait images (or likely ones) except Dunstan on WP, do you know of any? in particular the cross-looking Anglo-Saxon monk, (Eadwine ?), but anyone really. Thanks, Johnbod 16:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I mention Paris, but don't use the image, as it is similar to Dunstan. Don't worry, I have lots of references & images in Jonathon Alexander; Medieval Illuminators and their Methods of Work; p.9-34, Yale UP, 1992, ISBN0300056893, but there's none on WP I can see. There are actually a surprising number of early ones. Johnbod 16:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Cuts
Peter Kidd has been doing quite a few cuts - I've just partly restored some at Luttrell Psalter, and Master Hugo needs careful sorting out. Johnbod 14:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Eddie Lawrence
This article has another speedy tag on it. Place a hangon tag if you must, but do not remove this second tag without using the proper procedures. I have also placed tags on it for references and notability. Bearian 20:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Tags
Thanks for the 411. Bearian 12:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to change the date of the Kells monastic settlement - NOT the Book of Kells - and have left a message on the discussion page of the Book of Kells. NOt at all sure that I am communicating properly in this format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.82.178 (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Oklahoma Newsletter October 07
This newsletter was delivered to you by Okiefromokla. This is a one-time delivery as to all Wikiproject Oklahoma members to boost interest in the newsletter. In the future, if you would like to receive this newsletter in your talk page, please insert your name in the sign-up list. Thanks!

CSD reform
I have read your user page concerns and I agree with you. I think the WP:CSD is being abused because I have had three articles that have been put up for CSD for notability reasons: Bruce Haslingden, James Crall, and Thomas M. Jacobs. The Haslingden article was kept, the Crall article was withdrawn, and the Jacobs article is still under consideration. I am on the WP:OLYMPICS project and one of the goals of that project is to get names for those who have competed in any event in the Summer or Winter Olympics, regardless of their finish. This also includes the respective sports' world championships as well given the respective sources. I am well aware of the WP:CRUFT rule having dealt with the Haslingden article earlier this year, but the way that some people view cruft is, in my opinion, extreme. Your thoughts on this. Chris 22:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Eyeshine page
May I ask why this page was deleted? I see no valid reason for the deletion of a page with solid information. It's not like I just created some random page with a bunch of nonsense here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big pun 88 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Thanks for your help on saving the Thomas M. Jacobs article from deletion. I greatly appreciate it. Chris 12:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up to editing
After what happened with Cruftbane, I have decided to monitor his user page. He and another user are trying to form a Wikiproject dealing with cruft. I agree with you that there are some editors who do not understand the rules on Wikipedia depsite notability as stated in WP:BIO, but these editors will not understand that what they are doing is not helping Wikipedia, but only hurting. Chris 14:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Follow up to Eyeshine
But they aren't a "local" band. They play shows all over the country. How many "local" bands can say that. I also noticed you gave a lack of notability as a reason for deletion and, not to be rude, but did you read the article? Eyeshine's lead singer, Johnny Yong Bosch, is pretty notable. He spent almost four years on "Power Rangers" and has appeared in a few movies in the past couple years not to mention his current involvement as a voice actor for anime programs like "Trigun" "Bleach" and "Eureka Seven" as well as video games such as "Devil May Cry 4" and "The Last Remnant." I think Johnny's status is enough to warrant a page for his band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big pun 88 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:KellsFol034rXRhoDet3.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:KellsFol034rXRhoDet3.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 22:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Commentaria vs. Commentarium
seems ur the resident manuscript expert. im working on the Wikiproject:Spanish Translation, and i came across a work by st. beatus. some articles in english wiki call it 'commentaries on the apocaplypse', others 'commentary'. spanish and french wikis do the same in different articles. and half the time i see the latin 'commentaria in apocalypsin', the other half 'commentarium'. back in '05, u managed to use the english singular 'commentary' and latin plural 'commentaria' in beatus's article. even other websites flip-flop between the singular and plural forms (in all languages). someone needs to determine if it's really 'commentary' or 'commentaries' (and use the exact same latin translation, since i imagine that's the original language of the work, as other european works at that time). as soon as its determined, i'll make the corresponding changes to other wikis. since ur creating a "medieval books wikiproject", 'commentaries' can be near the top of the list, to iron out all of its issues.

spanish wiki has a separate article for the 'commentary/ies'. i saw u decided against it for english wiki in beatus's talk page. it'd help me if both wikis were set up the same, so i could do an exact translation. the spanish article on the manuscript is super-longer than the english section in beatus's article. if i were to translate and incorporate their article into beatus's article, it would eventually be too long and someone might bring up the idea to divy them up. u still wanna keep them both bundled together?

also i saw u have on ur to-do list to create 2 more articles for beatus (gerona and paris). the "mozarabic art" article refers to him as 'Beatus of Facundus' and 'Beatus of Tábara'. is there any relationship between ur 2 alternative names and that article's 2? Ivansevil 18:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Weird
You don't say! :) J- ſtan TalkContribs 03:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Now, if you had your life in order, you'd know where your towel is :) J- ſtan TalkContribs 03:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I give up :) I actually looked at the Pop Culture References section on the towel article. But alas, a Hitchhiker's reference, and Towelie, and nothing else useful. J- ſtan TalkContribs 17:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * CURSES!!! You are the towel master! Here is your prize, created especially for the occasion, although I think it's gonna be a thing.

J- ſtan TalkContribs 23:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Carsick Cars (deleted)
You deleted the Carsick Cars article. I made several edits to the article since it was put up for speedy deletion, added a "holdon" template and wrote on Talk:Carsick Cars on why it should not be deleted. I reiterate: Carsick Cars is a underground Beijing band who has played at many venues in China as well as together with Sonic Youth in Europe. I do believe they are notable even without the Sonic Youth connection, but you did not respond to what I said on the talk page. I would like you to either (1) explain why this article is too un-notable to exist or (2) undelete the page. Foolip 13:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will edit the article into the best shape I can and let the vote decide. Foolip 05:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Narzißmus
I've put back the db-tag on this article. If you will run a quick and dirty translation (say, for example, using Google or Babelfish), you will find that the article is an incoherent personal essay denouncing narcissism. On the other hand, perhaps db-copyvio would be better: the article itself proclaims such. Michaelbusch 16:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Jennifer Chiaverini
The assertions of notability were pretty weak in the original article. It looked like a promo article. It still needs work and some references, but it is now pretty clear she meets notability standards. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 09:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

New pictures of Tulsa... maybe?
Hi there. Are you still running around and getting pictures of old art deco buildings on occasion? If so, could you possibly swing by the west bank of the Arkansas River or the pedestrian bridge by downtown and get a couple good pictures of the skyline at day? I think there's a need for one (we only have a night pic now), and it would be nice to get it before the leaves fall off and before Oklahoma goes on the main page Nov. 16th. I don't see any time I would be able to go to Tulsa (I don't live in town). Anyway, if you're in that area and you've got a camera, it would be very helpful! Keep up the good work on the Tulsa art deco list, and if you can't get the picture, it's no big deal. Thanks, Okiefromoklatalk to me 23:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of speedy deletion tag on Andreas Spanias
Since industrial revolution, there are millions of people who invented, discovered, published papers-books, developed thousands of softwares. Do you think millions of people deserve main name space on wikipedia?

For example, few days ago, I received email from NASA engineer who worked to improve quality of one of the thousands of parts in satellite. He is inventing, doing research like other thousands of NASA people. This or that research is going in thousands of labs, university on earth. And it is helping to advance technology. Do you think million people deserve bio on wikipedia? Is this encyclopedia or biopedia?

Moreover the bio Andreas Spanias is self-created by user. Why would some one sign up to create article with name similar to username and vanish from wikipedia after just 2 edits?

abhih 22:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

this deletion
Sorry, this deleted article looked like an A1 to me when I tagged it, because it was very short.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. deleted contribs 05:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Googlesyndrome a PROD really?
The article even states it was created about 5 days ago by a high school teacher in class. I could understand if its been floating around a year and been in use in that cumminity. Personally i still think a speedy was appropriate as wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Jack The Pumpkin King 01:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well as long as its still deleted its cool BUNNYS 02:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nick Van Eede and Barto Vanliquez
Hi, I strongly suspect these are a WP:HOAX. No Google hits for (a) death of van Eede (b) existence of Vanliquez, and no references on either page. You removed the speedy. I've just re-CSD'd as db-attack to avoid them propagating further. -- Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 03:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

karmen vortices
I found this wiki article and it explains the same thing only in far greater detail.

Von Kármán vortex street —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebaben3 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Jon Muncaster
Would you mind taking a look at this please. Tiptoety 00:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help! Tiptoety 00:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

J. H. Rush article
Hey Dsmdgold: The J.H. Rush does not meet the 3rd Basic Criteria for being notable. A quick goggle search for "J.H. Rush" showed nothing about him (excluding the article itself) and a search for "J.H. Rush Memorial" showed only a short sentence about him buried on the second page. There's also a bunch of other criteria he does not meet and an article about him seems unnecessary. Thanks, Yakobbokay 07:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

--Alright cool, I guess I misunderstood speedy delete. 216.119.179.252 02:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

MS (disambiguation)
Thank you Dsmdgold for you time and patience in the MS disambiguation page. I'm happy we where able to work together in finding a proper reference for the relationship of manuscript and MS. :) I left a special thank you on the disambiguations talk page beside that item with you name. Thank you again and I hope we can work together in fixing the other items. --CyclePat 21:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert
Thanks for the revert on the John Jarrett article on the CSD. I greatly appreciate it. Chris 19:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark batey
This is a problematic issue, in which someone has created an article that constitutes a blatant hoax, yet this doesn't fit under any of the extant WP:CSD criteria. There have been several discussions in the past as to whether WP:CSD could be expanded to include a new such category; such discussions have always ended up divided. It is a nuisance to take such articles all the way through WP:AfD, where deletion is a foregone conclusion, and usually a waste of time to apply a PROD, where the creator will usually remove it without comment. I am happy to toe any party line on this, but there doesn't seem to be one: when I raised this issue at WT:CSD, I was advised by a admin, active in CSD, that he frequently deleted such articles under G7. I have taken a similar article through to WP:AfD, to see someone speedily delete it. Under these circumstances, what would you recommend? With regards, &mdash; BillC talk 20:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

New WikiProject
Hey, I noticed you were interested in Homeschooling, and I was wondering if you would like to join WikiProject Homeschooling, a new WikiProject that I am trying to start. You can sign up at that page. Thanks! • Evan S  :: talk   §    email   §   photos • 21:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Gretsch 6136
Gretsch 6136, an article you contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Gretsch 6136 satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gretsch 6136 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (JSC ltd 20:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)). You are free to edit the content of Gretsch 6136 during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JSC ltd 20:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List of the Day Experiment
There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

History of medicine in X categories
Many thanks for your observations and suggestions. I'm quite new on Wikipedia and I'm trying to better focus the aim and contents of these categories. As you told, in principle I just want to collect every "thing" associated with medical history that have left some visible "trace" in a particular country or city. I think it would be useful for students, scholars and teachers of related subjects. I originally started a group of Categories named "Historical medical landmarks in..." but it was deleted due to lack of a clear meaning. In fact, it was suggested to me to rename all of them as "History of medicine in...". The original group had the following description: "This category page lists historical medical landmarks by their geographic location. This category (with its subcategories) is intended as a co-operative project for people interested in the history of medicine (and others health-related topics). When they travel for personal or professional reasons, through this wiki-category, they can easily locate (potentially, at least!)important places to pay a visit to in every Country or Town: buildings, monuments, museums, libraries, birthplaces, works of art, etc. The project is just at the very beginning. Everyone can add new items to “the map”, and complete or correct the existing ones". Do you think it would be useful to add a similar explication to the new categories? Many thanks again, Luca Borghi (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTD experiment
My userpage List of the Day experiment is getting under way at WP:LOTD. One of your lists has been nominated. I invite you to come by and represent it. If you would like to represent your list article please reformat your username in the table so it is normal sized. Among the things you may want to do to represent your list are:
 * 1) Change the image selection
 * 2) Add talk page projects to the list and then add them on the summary table
 * 3) Write a summary of the article in less than 500 characters. I will begin doing this later today for those who don't do it themselves.
 * 4) Participate in the feed back process when it starts on December 1.
 * 5) Participate in the voting when it starts on December 11.

You are free to remain uninvolved. Your list was chosen for being among the first TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Manuscript images available online
Dsmdgold, I thought you might be interested in this page, which links to numerous images of early manuscripts. This is an area I know you know a lot more about than I do; are any of these pages worth uploading? We don't have an article on Liber Wigornensis yet, and these mss are not among the ones identified in List of manuscripts in the Cotton library, so I'm not entirely sure what we have here. Anyway, if these are worth taking, let me know and I'll upload some. I don't really want to take some without knowing a good reason -- the British Museum copyright notice doesn't have any force in the US, so these are public domain, but I'd rather only take what can be valuable to the encyclopedia. Mike Christie (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's useful. I'll drop a note to Adam Bishop and Wetman in case they're interested.  I'm still learning about this era, and frankly the more I learn the more interesting it gets, so I may end up writing some of these articles myself.  Mike Christie (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oklahome historic places
Hi Dsmdgold, I saw you added your name to NRHP wikiproject indicating Oklahoma interest. Take a look at List of National Historic Landmarks in Oklahoma. It would be great if you could contribute to that. Also, i visited your recently edited page Presbyterian Church (Beaver, Oklahoma) and I tried to add to it. I added one of the semi-official NRHP infoboxes. For NRHP sites, there is a program available which is refered to as the Elkman infobox generator which helps with that, using data downloaded one time from the National Register Information System. can give u more info about that and some other tips, if you are interested, send me a note at my talk page. Anyhow, welcome on board the NRHP project, glad to have u especially as i don't know of any other active OK people yet. Cheers, doncram (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up
... and the advice. I did not realize that a different user removed the tag. I have withdrew the nomination. meshach (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for removing the speed deletion tag and I have include the chart on the article Str8_buttah. Thanks. 18:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Congrats
Thank you Dsmdgold for the kind words. You really made my day. In regard to the Senate recognition, I was taken by surprise. I wasn't expecting anything of the sort and even though I don't think that I deserved it, it sure made me feel good to be honored by the people and country that I love. You are also one of the good ones and if I can be of any help please do not hesitate to ask. Cheers! Tony the Marine (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

ABA adopting Clements bird family revisions
This is probaly old news, but ABA has adopted some family revisions which this list should follow since it follows the ABA list, and Wikipedia species accounts seem to be follwing this split. For example, Gulls, Terns, Skimmers and Skuas are all split; Pheasants, Grouse, Turkeys are split, Osprey is split from Hawks, and Gnatcatchers are split from Old World Warblers........any objections to updating the list????? I can do a few........, and I hope you don't mind, but I added the new ABA birds which were accepted this year.....Pmeleski (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for not deleting Ninekirks
Yes, I should have used a Sandbox. Sorry about that. I'll keep working on it. (Northernhenge (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC))

Replay Baseball
I have complied with your request, restored the material, and listed it with related products at Articles for deletion/Second Season Pro Football. If I were the contentious sort, I'd argue that the deletion is probably sustainable under G11, but -- with a listing already existing -- it isn't worth disputing seriously. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)