User talk:DESiegel/Archive 9

'' This is an archive of User talk:DESiegel. Please do not change it in any way. DES (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC) ''

Thanks...
Much appreciate your feedback on the Pacific Buddhist Academy page. It helped me improve it quite a bit, and prodded loose some ideas for other fixes as well. Thanks again, Kawiki808 (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. it is now looking good, IMO. I took the liberty of editing it to use "List-defined References as explained in Help:Footnote. This puts the detailed reference data into a list at the end of the article. Since it means that the references are named, it almost automatically means that multiple uses of the same reference are properly grouped.
 * While the Curriculum and Campus sections could use some references, i think this is ready to go live. Do you know how to move this to the main article space? DES (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like I managed to take it live, and restored the logo as well! Mahalo again for your help on this. Kawiki808 (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Kiichiro Hurukawa
Excuse me, but what exactly did you mean by "now sourced" here? Misleading edit summaries are not appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize. I'll assume good faith that it was an error.  I corrected it.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My error. I was inserting the same source in the pages of a number of restored articles about astronomers who have discovered asteroids, in a series of parallel edits. I apparently failed to hit the paste key on this one. I should have double checked. I have now inserted the source I had intended to insert previously. DES (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand. I saw from your history what was going on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion complaint moved from talk page header: University of N&Z West
I am a professor at University of N&Z West, there is no violation of copyright. Please put the wikipage back "University of N&Z West" 72.21.133.167 (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I deleted the University of N&Z West article on 00:55, 12 January 2010. At that time (I have just checked the version as it was when I deleted it) It consisted largely of text directly copied from the http://www.unzwest.com/about_unzw.php page. Specifically the first paragraph was copied with minor alterations, the section "Community Engagement" was copied exactly, as were the first two paragraphs of "Achieving Regional and Global Impact". the source web page carries the notice "UNZW © 2009". As indicated in our copyright policy such contributions are not acceptable unless the copyright holder releases them under a free license, which as far as I know has not been done in this case.


 * Moreover, even had there been no copyright issue, the page as it stood was far too promotional for a Wikipedia article. Neither of these things would prevent a valid article being written, but the text I deleted was not such an article.


 * Since I deleted the page it has been recreated and deleted twice more, the last time after this discussion. Unless the issues raised there are dealt with, this article is not at all likely to be undeleted. DES (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mary Geaney
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mary Geaney. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Mary Geaney. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciated your comments at Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, which will determine whether the community will delete 50,000 articles created by 17,400 editors, most new editors. Ikip 01:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No barnstar from me, only a swift trout!
Unsourced BLP's are against policy and their deletion is much deserved. Try not to get to over excited with the block tools next time when someone acts outside the square.  « l | Promethean ™ | l »   (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Drug Therapy Problems
To: DESiegel

Thank you for cleaning up wikipedia of spam, but I must ask you to reverse your speedy deletion of Drug Therapy Problems. This section actually can not be reworded because it is technical information that is defined by those exact phrases. I listed one copyrighted source as an example that I didn't just pull it out of my hat, but in fact I could list 100's of sources. This is a very important topic because it correlates to many other disciplines related to pharmacy and drug therapy. One author does not hold copyright to these definitions as they are national guidelines that are then talked about in vast medical literature specifically pharmacy related. comment added by speedymarathon (speedymarathon) Speedymarathon (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)speedymarathon
 * See reply on User talk:Speedymarathon. DES (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Drug therapy problems
Hi. You speedied this article as a copyvio of http://www.molinu.org/drug_therapy_problems, which it now turns out is a Wikipedia mirror. I've restored and userfied it for the author to work on. Just thought I'd let you know in case you come across the site again. Cheers! Olaf Davis (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback#17_Bis EdGilmour (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Colescott article
Thank you for your input on the new article, Warrington Colescott. I made several changes, and I believe I addressed all your concerns by either deleting those sentences you felt were statements of fact, or adding more references. I believe we can now remove the tags alerting the reader to "uncited opinion" and "original research." Shall I go ahead and remove those, or can only administrators do so?

Thank you for your time and advice. Barcham (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation
(refactored template)

It was my bad that the discussion appeared to be closed. Per LAR's input I have changed the pagename to broaden the scope of the discussion. And rather than a POV fork, I wanted the discussion to focus on solutions, rather than recriminations as at the RFC. Please reconsider sharing your valuable input. thank you. Ikip 22:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting your help
I have been working at the Draft article ('Polo Piatti') as previously agreed. I would be very grateful if you could have a look at it now and let me know if the article is going in the right direction? I'd just like to know that I'm working in the right way before I continue? Many thanks for your help. Magiko (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help
Your help is very much appreciated. I don't know if I understand exactly all what you mean but I will try my best. The examples of other composers that you suggested will be a great help. I will be in touch when I have advanced a bit more. Thanks again. Magiko (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. DES (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Thank you for your valuable feedback on the Let's Adopt article. I have made some of the changes you suggested, and I am still working on the rest. I might have to bother you one more time once I am done. Thank you so much. Retinue (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing
I was looking at and I wanted to know why you thought it was appropriate to source the article to a blog and to a commercial website selling crests? Considering those are the only sources for the article, they fail WP:BLPSPS and our sourcing standard in general.  MBisanz  talk 07:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Although a blog in form, http://deathby1000papercuts.blogspot.com/ appears to be sponsored by Parade Magazine, and under its editorial control. WP:RS says "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." I took this to fall under that principle. Perhaps I was mistaken. As to the crest site, http://www.family-crests.com/family-crest-coat-of-arms/on-this-day/february-29.html does not appear to be "self-published". I know of no rule or guideline tht excludes by commercial firms, and I see no reason why their commercial interests would lead them to be biased on this subject. It may not be the best source in the world, but for the relatively non-contentious fact that this person exists and has a particular profession, it seems a reasonable source to me. DES (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Where do you see the blog is sponsored by Parade Magazine. I see not evidence of the usual level of editorial control expected by a professional writer (no "about" page, no contact link, no copyright notice). And the crests website would be excluded from the BLP under Verifiability' promotional nature clause since it is a self-published website with the intent of getting people to buy its services, which calls into question the veracity of its information. These kinds of sources, as the only source for a BLP, just don't work.  MBisanz  talk 15:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I went to the blog's home page, and saw an "about" link, clicked on it, and was taken to the Parade site. This was minutes ago, before I wrote the above. However, i just tried this again and found no such link. Perhaps it was only a transient advertising link. I may have been mistaken on this source. I did find the subject's personal web page, and added it for an external link. This would be sufficient to source basic facts like DoB. However, the search i just did suggests that this person, whether sourced or not, is probably not notable, because I could not find any other significant online sources beyond Wikipedia mirrors. I am going to Prod the page, and if anyone can establish notability, that will automatically mean that better sources are found. DES (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you went to AfD, making a prod moot. I have commented. DES (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh, good thanks for looking at it again and clarifying.  MBisanz  talk 17:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it might have been a "sponsered by" link that i took for editorial endorsement and was actually merely an and. I should have double checked. Mind you, I think the almost absolute rule against blogs is sometimes a mistake, but it has consensus and I intend to comply -- and usually it is a good idea to avoid blogs as sources in any case. DES (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Samwb123/Gotcha
See his talk page; I suggested he tag it and the MfD can then close. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies. I should have taken the time to look further and found your comment in the MfD. FWIW, the urge for expediency was, in part, driven by this discussion:
 * User talk:Amorymeltzer
 * Pleased to have met you; I've seen your sig about a few times, but don't believe we've much interacted. Cheers, Jack Merridew (aka David) 07:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * more: I just visited your user page; APL was one of the first programing languages I used (on a 5110) and I've long forgotten most of it. I also went and read process is important and found it interesting. I can see how it led to your view on the db-u1. I know I'm inclined to expeditious action but the essay makes a good case for mostly going by the book. I'll marinate on it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Qicks
Dude, no Google hits for either of the game's titles, and definitely no connection to either Don Johnson or Tim Curry. A few quick Google searches hardly qualify as extensive research, but if the subject doesn't appear in said searches, the hoax seems pretty damn blatant to me. C1k3 (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You did such a great job
cleaning up a mess that I left last night that I thought I'd try you again. Some vandal at Jemez Pueblo, New Mexico posted a name and a phone number there. It was removed pretty quickly by another editor but I am wondering if it is possible to remove it from the history too? The number looks like it might be fake, but the area code looks right, and just to be on the safe side. . .... what do you think? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again and hopefully I will not have to make a habit of this. Carptrash (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of TeamSupport
Mr. Siegel,

In reference to the speedy deletion of the TeamSupport page (User_talk:JohnsonRC), I would like it restored back to my userspace so I may edit and resubmit it.

What is the process for resubmission?

Thanks! Robert

JohnsonRC (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

National Association of Women in Construction
Hi, DESiegel,

The article had almost no information in it. Rather than undeleting, please feel free to re-create the article, but please add some information that will satisfy notability requirements, preferably by adding information and references. If it doesn't have that, it's likely to get deleted again. The sparse info that was deleted follows:

The National Association of Women in Construction (NAWIC) is an International association that promotes and supports the advancement and employment of women in the construction industry.

Martin-In-The-Fields, Frederick
Sorry, looks like I used the wrong reason for speedy deletion but I'm not sure what I should have used instead. Martin-In-The-Fields, Frederick is the same person as Frederick Martin-Del-Campo which is currently being discussed for deletion. The user Snoobula copied the text he/she used over from Frederick Martin-Del-Camp to the new page he/she created "Martin-In-The-Fields, Frederick" I guess to preserve the biography even if the original gets deleted. Bfootdav (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirect speedy declined
Hi! Please take a look here: User talk:Nancy. Thanks! -- Basilicofresco  (msg) 08:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Fuck you
Ты педик —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.176.10.141 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 6 February 2010

no shame. I wrote that you're gay --178.176.10.141 (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As it happens i'm not gay, but do not think it shameful to be so. But many people do think this is insulting, so do not post such comments on Wikipedia. Doing so is a reason for blocking a user. DES (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Old comma redirects
I've started a discussion at Village pump (policy). DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Chi Theta Omega Fraternity
Hello. Thank you for your message. I agree that Chi Theta Omega Fraternity is a candidate for A7 deletion. When I first read the article, I thought the Speedy tag was going to be A7. I'm going to nominate it now. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks DES (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
iBentalk/contribs 21:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

→ Journalism Training and Research Initiative
He DESiegel, I wonder if you'd reconsider declining my db-r3 on this redirect. You're right that "someone might search on the acronym," but I had already created → Journalism Training and Research Initiative for that purpose. Thanks—  Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 09:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and have deleted under R3. DES (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and also re Arctic Cape. Yeah, I should have added that myself, I think I got sidetracked trying to figure out where the heck the AfD disappeared to.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 20:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are quite welcome. DES (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Twitch Film
No problem, your work looks good. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Barry John Walsh
Perhaps you can help me understand why he is notable? Is All-Ireland Senior Football Championship a professional or amateur contest? C T J F 8 3 chat 00:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that he was notable. "claim of significance" is a significantly lower bar than notability. So far as I can see, the event that he won (was on the winning team of) was an amateur event at the national level, comparable to the Rose bowl, perhaps. That may not alone make him notable, but it means that there is a chance that there was enough coverage to establish notability, a large enough chance that any deletion should be given more time for editors to find references, and at least the possibility of wider discussion. If you think this article should be deleted, prod it or put it up for WP:AFD. Note that WP:CSD says "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. ... If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion." DES (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you, C T J F 8 3  chat 02:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Firewall
I noticed you edited the article right after me. Hopefully there wasn't an edit conflict issue. I'm talking to the user (or trying) right now regarding this page move, which was done through copy-paste so it's a bit messy. There are two issues, 1) the procedural problems of the copy paste renames, and 2) the question of whether or not the rename's correct.

I would like some additional input if you are so inclined. Shadowjams (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I expressed my view on Talk:Firewall (computer).
 * For one thing, please, please don't do copy&paste moves, they cause major hassles for admins like me to clean up.
 * For a second i think that neither topic is "primary" in the sense that we can be sure that most readers will be looking for that topic and not any of the others associatesd with the term "Firewall". In this case, the normal thing to do, asdn suggested by WP:DAB is to put the disambiguation page itself at the primary name, in this case Firewall. DES (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought I explained that I didn't do that. I'm the one trying to figure it out and clean it up. The user who did all of this was User talk:Da Vynci, as I linked above. Shadowjams (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I read your comment. I am in agreement. Here's my previous comment (edit conflicted)


 * I am skeptical of whether or not it's a correct move under WP:PT. Firewall proper gets about 3,000 hits/day, whereas Firewall construction gets about 300. I find it highly unlikely that all of those people are looking for the construction concept, and don't click through. This should be listed at Requested moves; I don't think it's gotten enough (actually it hasn't gotten any) discussion. The WT:Firewall page had its last post on April 2009, then this user posted and waited a short time. Shadowjams (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies for implying incorrectly that you had doen the C&P move. I was confused by all this for a moment -- i came to this situation from CAT:CSD. DES (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that further discussion on the merits occur at Talk:Firewall (computer). DES (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok cool. Yeah, it was such a messed up move history I certainly don't want you confusing my name with it. It took me 5 minutes just to figure out what was going on. I saw it on new page patrol, and figured that we have to have some sort of firewall article.


 * I think you and I are in agreement. I even think the firewall (networking) article probably should reside at Firewall, although I wouldn't be completely opposed otherwise.


 * The only other thing is that I believe Firewall (networking) and Firewall (computer) are duplicates of eachother right now. Shadowjams (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Shadowjams (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Julian Barry
As the tag was removed originally by the article's creator, which as you know they are not supposed to do, I think you should restore it, particularly since the reason your removed it turned out to be an error. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, ignore that, I've seen the AfD. I'm pretty sure that we have an account here using an IP also to edit. It may be just cluelessness, not realising they are logged out, or deliberate, I don't know. Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You may well be correct about the creator also editing as an IP, but since he doesn't seem to be pretending to be two people, or otherwise editing disruptively (except for the removal of the speedy tag, which I will AP:AGF to be ignorance) there is no problem that i can see. I chose to edit solely as an IP for over a year, and still sometimes find myself logged out unexpectedly. DES (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletes
Hi, I acknowledge that the speedy deletes that I proposed were probably not the right way to go about it. I had requested help for milhist group to move as both articles existed so could not move convientally and need an admin. I waited and waited but still nothing so I decided to do it by copy and pasting, which now I was the incorrect method. Newm30 (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, we all learn. I am not upset, merely trying to explain the situation. Wikipedia is a big complex place. Other ways to get help in future:
 * Place the helpme tag on your talk page, just above or below a description of the problem;
 * Post on the Help desk;
 * ask someone you know to be an admin or an experienced editor;
 * look at List of administrators to find a possibly helpful admin.
 * I hope this advice is useful. DES (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Paul Blackburn (public speaker)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Paul Blackburn (public speaker). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Paul Blackburn (public speaker). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Award from: Article Rescue Squadron Hall of Fame
Congratulations, you have been inducted into the Article Rescue Squadron Hall of Fame for Barry John Walsh.

See the new little Life Preserver at the top of your page?

Coding:

Feel free to add more articles saved awards to your page, and to award other people this award too, for saving articles from deletion on Wikipedia. Okip (formerly Ikip) 09:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

WildBot and 7SeriesBOT
Hey, when 7Series actually goes into live mode, would you agree that WildBot's G7 tagging makes sense once again? Right now, 7Series is doing a lot less "work" than it would with that kind of activity. Cheers! ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 13:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I would. I thought it had already resumed. DES (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge
Yeah, I might just merge it right now. I was in a hurry at the time, so that pretty much explains it all. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Already completed. I just usually leave short and sweet reasons since they become rather dull after 50 tags. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Consciousness Quotient
Could you please reinstate this article? OTRS has received an email releasing the material it was a copyright infringement of. The ticket number is 2010021410013991. I will add the relevant tags as soon as it is up again. Thank you in advance. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

J-Ethinomics
Hello, you either prodded or endorsed prod on J-Ethinomics. The article creator left a note on the article talk page indicating that deletion is not uncontroversial. Therefore, I have opened an AfD discussion at Articles for deletion/J-Ethinomics. Please opine at that discussion. Thanks! &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Similarity between religion and mythology
Hey,

I kind of agree with you when you said that Similarity between religion and mythology isn't really vandalism, but it feels like there must be a better option than to let it sit there for a week, no? -Zeus-u 02:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You could always convert it into a redirect to some article if you can find an appropriate one. Or edit to be less of an essay. I don't see major harm in letting this sit for a week, and i do see major harm in letting the CSD slip. DES (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I pointed it to Religion and mythology but put on a new prod stating my concern of it being a loaded term. -Zeus-u 02:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Once you make it a redir, you can't prod it. see WP:PROD "Note that only articles, lists, and disambiguation pages may be deleted using the Proposed deletion process." DES (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh... didn't know that. Well, there's really no harm leaving it as it is. -Zeus-u 02:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've listed it at WP:RFD, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 February 17. DES (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
-Zeus-u 14:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
-Zeus-u 18:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy declination of Inktel DIrect
Hi, I noticed you turned down WP:CSD on the article Inktel DIrect. I had considered the awards as a claim of significance when I nominated it, but decided that they did not "indicate why the company was important". However, I respect your decision and have listed it for AfD. Articles for deletion/Inktel DIrect -Zeus-u 22:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at Before nominating an article for deletion, particularly the sections that says"When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." and "If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." It seems to me that you are being a bit fast on the deletion trigger. Please consider trying to improve articles, or failing that, tagging them to suggest improvements to others, before nominating for deletion. DES (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Re. tagging of 2012 Formula One season
Thanks for highlighting my error in incorrectly tagging the article for speedy deletion. A discussion arose at WP:F1 regarding the creation of the article, and I was in agreement that the article should have been deleted because the season is so far in the future. Looking back now, it would have been better to have followed the previous procedure by prodding the article instead. I think the redirect was the best solution. Thanks again, Schumi  555  21:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Proding with a citation of WP:CRYSTAL would also have been reasonable. Now it might be that there has already been enough discussion of the 2012 season for a worth while article to be based on reliable sources, i wouldn't know. But if so, the article at hand wasn't it. Thanks for calling attention to a very dubious article, but please in future try to be extra careful in the use of speedy deletion tags, because often only two sets of eyes see them (the tagger and the reviewing admin), and only clear cut cases should IMO avoid broader consensus in this manner. DES (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your welcome in my user discussion page. And I appreciate all the links you have provided.

$$ Fierce D $$ (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

GFDL and Wikipedia
Hi DESiegel. I noticed that you recently removed a copyvio tag from the Roberto bulatao feleo article because the content was released under the GFDL license. However, GFDL-only text can no longer be used on Wikipedia since the switch to dual licensing on June 16, 2009 (see Licensing update). Just thought I'd let you know. :) Regards,  The left orium  13:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? I missed that. But even so, something released under a fre license, even if not the correct free license, is not IMO the kind of blatant copyvio for which speedy deletion is appropriate, the slower process at WP:Copyright problems would allow determining whether the creator would cross-license. DES (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The "author" of the Wikipedia article has been given instructions on how to proceed in the automatic template that was left of his/her talk page. The article can be restored later on, but right now it needs to be deleted as a copyright violation. Also, a specific speedy deletion template was created for GFDL-copyvios: Template:Db-gfdl.  The left orium  13:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On seeing that, my first inclination is to tag Db-gfdl for speedy deletion as a template that mis-states policy. WP:CSD syas "...with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license...". It does not say "a cc-by-SA license" nor "a compatible free license". I will not support a speedy deletion as a copyvio of text under any free license, that should be a matter for WP:CP. DES (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering we've had several similar experiences with Wikipilipinas, as an admin working on CP, posting it there is merely delaying the inevitable. MLauba (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that you raise a very good point about the letter of the law, one I've brought to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. I have tweaked the policy to include the word "accepted", which I believe accurately reflects practice, but I wanted to be sure to let you know about that conversation so you could join in if you disagree. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Council of Residential Specialists
DE, Thank you for reviewing my article. I also appreciate you cleaning up some of the elements that were in error. I have read up on citation and I was curious if for something like the Mission Statement and Objectives contains peacock language how would I make it clear that I am quoting from them and not putting those phrases in there? I already have footnotes at the end of both paragraphs but wondering if there was a better way? I also plan on looking up more third party sources, just wanted to get a good start from what I've read. Thanks. Rkairis (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)rkairis
 * When something like a mission statement is a direct quote, put it within quote marks at the least. This indicates more clearly that it is quoted. You can also introduce quotes. An article could say something like:
 * According to its website, the council's mission is "To promote.... To assist..." and its guiding principles are "To ensure fair dealing while.... To always...."
 * That sort of thing, combined with a properly cited reference to the source of the quote, makes is crystal clear whose words these are. Similarly, if one is reporting opinion about the subject, one should attribute the opinion in the text. For example, an article might say:
 * John Jones said of the Council "It is the most helpful organization i have ever belonged to",(citation) but Eve Dallas felt that "It has no value whatsoever".(citation)
 * Note that if there is significant negative opinion about a subject that has been reported in a reliable source it ought to be included and properly attributed so that it is clear whose opinion it is. The article itself should not express or imply an opinion, but merely report the opinions of specified others. (This the the neutral point of view.) Terms like "Many critics have said" or "most of those in the industry feel" should be avoided, and specific views of named people (or institutions speaking through official statements) used instead. Such terms are often called "weasel words".
 * More third-party sources would be very good. However, note that they should be published in reliable sources. Blogs, online forum posts, and the like should not be used. Mentions in directories are of at best limited value. Passing mentions are also of little value, a news story saying something like "Fred Smith, CEO of Acme Products, was appointed to the President's council on natural wildlife" may be relevant to an article about Smith, but probably not to one about Acme.
 * I hope this is helpful, feel free to ask further questions if you have them. And of course, do remember that although i have some Wikipedia experience (as can be seen on my user page), different editors have different opinions, and my views should not be taken as the One True Wikipedia WayTM, indeed there is no One True Way. DES (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, a minor point, when you leave a msg on someone's talk page about a particular article, it is often helpful to leave a link to the article (by putting the article's exact name in Double square brackets ). Even if the person has worked on the article before, a link makes it easier and quicker for the person to actual go to the article in question, and see it or edit it. DES (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

DE, thank you for the feedback. I am trying to work towards everything but had a couple quick questions. You first item says that "all of the references are bare hyperlinks, and need to be converted to include the relevant metadata" and I've read the links but am slightly confused. If I don't want to add a references section and have everything be referenced in the footnotes, what do you think the proper formatting in? Also, I read up on meta data and are you suggesting I use the COinS generator for all my links? I viewed some other articles and most footnotes just had the website and article title. Just want to see what you think is "good enough" for a reference. Thanks Rkairis (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)rkairis
 * I'll try to clarify a bit.
 * Consider one reference currently number 5. the currnt wiki-text for this is:
 * I would suggest that it instead read something like
 * or better yet
 * you see that the reference as displayed should include the title of the story, article, or web page, the date of publication (when available), the name of the author (when available), the newspaper, journal, or other work of which the story or article forms a part (when there is one), the date of access (for purely web sources, and optionally for sources found online that have also been printed), and the publisher (except when the name of the newspaper or journal is well enough known that this is not useful)
 * There is no need to use the COinS generator, but there is a need to capture the same basic information about a cited source that a printed research paper or academic journal would use. This allows a reader to evaluate your sources without having to follow every link, and also aids in finding a source again should a link go bad (see linkrot).
 * part of the problem is that too many of your sources are press releases. Currently citations # 4, 5, & 6 are to outside press releases, # 1 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are to parts of the crs.com web site, #9 is to an offline publication of the CRS, and #7 is a mere directory entry. Press releases often don't have stated authors, but they do generally have dates of puiblication and publishers.
 * Also, press releases and citations to an organization's own publications, including its web site, generally don't help to establish notability. Do read our guidelines on reliable sources and notability.
 * I generally prefer to use citation templates to format references, as in my second example, but that is strictly optional.
 * You can gather the citation information together into the reference section using list-defined references, but that is also optional. It reduces the clutter in the main wiki text, but requires an extra step when adding a new reference.
 * In any case please read our guide to citations and our help page on footnotes.
 * I hope these comments help, feel free to ask further questions. DES (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, my signature is "DES", short for "David E. Siegel", not "DE". DES (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In any case please read our guide to citations and our help page on footnotes.
 * I hope these comments help, feel free to ask further questions. DES (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, my signature is "DES", short for "David E. Siegel", not "DE". DES (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Chikamaka Band
The copyvio still remains I'm afraid. Sentences such as "Some things were forgotten and some practices ceased." and "Because of the various backgrounds intermingled in one people it is not uncommon..." are copied from http://www.chikamaka.org/org/?page_id=8. Thanks for helping out, BTW.  The left orium  22:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I must have missed those in the source. I will do a more through job later tonight if possible. I hope you will agree that the paragraphs i did rewrite -- largely those now sourced to www.chikamaka.org -- are changed enough not to be copyvios any longer. DES (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I see you're still working on this one. :) I've blanked it for now, since it still constitutes a copyright problem, and we need to prevent its being mirrored until its rewritten completely or permission is verified. One of the challenges of working SCV (and I'm always glad to see more people working copyrights! We need it!) is identifying all the text copied in the article. When content is copied from multiple pages, Corensearchbot often only lists one. It's generally a good idea to do a scan other content as well to make sure that there's not something from other pages, inside or outside of the same domain. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will be working on, and I hope finishing, this one today. DES (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is sufficiently rewritten now. DES (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  02:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback
Hello DESiegel. Thank you for your feedback on my draft article. I believe I have fixed the referencing format. The page is now live at International media reaction to Barack Obama's 2008 election. I welcome any further feedback. --Panda609 18:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC) ‎ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandaroyal (talk • contribs)

Article Clean up
Hello. You removed the delete tag on Michael Doret and mentioned the article could use some clean up. If it's not too much trouble, I would appreciate a little guidance regarding clean up. I have tried to keep all sentences factual while still reading well but as this is my first article, any feedback would be great. Thanks! -Sdazet (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The main issue is that it reads like a bulleted list of accomplisments or events, in short, like a resume. There needs to be more prose to flesh those accoplishments out and describe or explain their significance.
 * "Along with his design studio, Doret owns AlphabetSoup Type Founders[6] which distributes his original font designs through Font Bros.,[7] Fontshop,[8] MyFonts[9] and Veer.[10]" doesn't really fit well in the "Biographical info" section, it could perhaps go into a "Career" or "Work" section, but only if expanded a bit. What kinds of type designs has he done? Have any been particularly significant or innovative?
 * The references are currently bare URLs. They should include the basic metadata, such as author, publisher, date, and work. This can be done manually, but I think it is easier and more consistent to use the Citation templates, such as cite journal, cite web, cite news, and cite book. See our guide to citation and the Help:Footnotes page. The RefTool gadget (in Preferences|Gadgets) makes this much easier.
 * The external links should also be given descriptive titles rather than bare URLs, I have done the first one.
 * I hope this helps. DES (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Very much so. I'll work on getting it cleaned up.  Thank you. - Sdazet (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Neil Christopher Sanderson
Please see the edit history of Neil Sanderson. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have looked at it. I had looked at it before. I don't understand your point. i recognize that these are two names for the same person, that is why i suggested a merge. I recognize that Neil Sanderson was converted to a redir some months ago, but as a member of two different notable bands, the rationale for that no longer applies (if it did then). If you think some of my edits were in error or ill-advised, please be more explicit about the problem and why it is one. Thank you. DES (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

File:MDoret.jpg
The uploader of the image is not the owner and has provided no evidence that the true copyright owner has released the image under any compatible license. See for our discussion. Woogee (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you that clarifies matters. Has the image been listed for deletion on commons, or should I do so? DES (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wouldn't mind. I've never done a deletion attempt on commons, and don't know what templates to use.  Woogee (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, see the image on comons and the deletion discussion page DES (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. So, if I click "nominate for deletion" on the left menu, it will lead me by the hand through the deletion process?  Woogee (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. Along the way it opens an edit window or tab (depending on your settings) and you must save as part of completing the nomination. DES (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Woogee (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I just wanted to tell you I appreciate the work you did on my little Happy's Pizza article. I really didn't expect it to get picked apart so quickly. PeRshGo (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

hungry macrophage
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADlohcierekim&action=historysubmit&diff=346766478&oldid=346755169 OMG. Thanks] Dloh  cierekim  22:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A7 reason on the drop down
Please see WT:CSD, which i pointed at on MediaWiki talk:Deletereason-dropdown before i edited the page. There seems to be consensus on the WT:CSD page that the "no indications of Importance" wording (which you reintroduced in this edit is misleading and unhelpful. Please consider self-reverting or at least engaging in the discussion on the WT:CSD page. DES (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I overlooked that discussion. (In the future, it would be helpful to include a link in the edit summary instead of appending it to a thread from more than a year ago, which I didn't notice when I checked the bottom of the talk page.)
 * I've replied to the discussion and adjusted the wording to address the concern expressed therein. —David Levy 00:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right that I should have started a new thread -- I mis-read the latest comment as Jan of this year. It would also have been better to have but a link in the edit summery you are right. I will remember this. Thank you for responding. DES (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Those were minor missteps (which I've made in the past).  I just wanted it to be clear that I checked for a talk page message and didn't intend to bypass the discussion.  —David Levy 01:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand. I have continued the discussion on WT:CSD -- I think your latest tweak is still significantly suboptimal. i have refrained from reverting or changing in the interest of not altering an interface page too often, but I do think there is reason to change the version you edited, and that the past comments of others suggest that they will agree. I hope we will obtain consensus in fairly short order, and can then change the text and hope for it to be stable for a while. DES (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've responded as well. I'm confident that consensus can be reached with minimal difficulty, as there appears to be only minor disagreement.  —David Levy 01:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Question of wording, not overall intention. DES (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Tagging of 2532 (Milton Keynes) Squadron
Hello and thanks for the note. I am well aware that my tagging is quite fast but in my eyes the CSD user page notification also serves as a hint at what to improve in the article. Apart from that, I've seen CSD tags being handed out instantaneously with either Huggle or Twinkle, so I don't really see a need to change my practice. De728631 (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is exactly why I don't use automated means and try to judge from case to case. Just a few minutes ago I saw another case where AWB tagged an article about a Professor as non-notable. That said, I still don't think that I'm acting too fast when tagging one-liners that consist of a mere weblink after "only" 3 minutes. De728631 (talk)

Thanks
Thanks for deleting this - the reason I didn't warn the user is because there username is also a blatant vio of WP:U and I reported them to UAA and figured they would get the message from the block. Do you think the username is okay? Regards,  7  07:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It looked to me as if the page was autobiographical and promotional, but I didn't see indications that the name represented a group -- rather it looked as if he has named his "business" after himself or vice-versa. But I don't presume to draw any final conclusions on the matter. I always give speedy tagging notification even when i am going to report a far more clearcut COI username than this one. DES (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood - thanks. The name also matches his website, where the copyvio was from.  I'll wait and see what they say at UAA.  7  07:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Vocabulary of ancient Roman religion
Hi, DES. Re: various issues, I've responded on the talk page. Haploidavey (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Rockingham County Sheriff's Office
I thank you much for what you did to my article. I realize what I did was not proper and I won't create articles like that anymore. Jar789 (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are quite welcome. Many people don't understand Wikipedia policies at first. DES (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Night Safari
This article was evidently speedily deleted at the request of the author or main contributor, so I have no quarrel with the deletion. It came to my attention only through the removal of the link in the List of zoos list, which I am currently monitoring. I'm curious as to what was in the article to begin with, since "Night Safari" is a legitimate Zoo in Singapore and there seems to be enough material to readily create at least a start-class article about the zoo. I am not asking for an undelete at this time, but if possible I would like to see what was there. If there was a legal reason for this deletion, I would like to know so that we don't step on that reason when we do re-create that article at some point. I'm relatively new here, and I have no idea how to even find the original editor's name to ask questions once an article is deleted. Thanks. Donlammers (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The article seems to be now at Night Safari, Singapore. But by using the robot, it merely removed the links instead of amending them to point at the new article name. Please assist to rectify this, thanks!--Huaiwei (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What was speedy deleted was the redirect left behind by the move to Night Safari, Singapore. The "Remove backlinks" feature should not have been used in this casae, my apologies. I am fixing the affected pages now. DES (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I managed to find only some affected pages in my watchlist, so can't help you much in this regard! ;)--Huaiwei (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All the changes that the script made are recorded in my contributions, so I am able to find and fix them all. Actually, most of these links would have needed adjustment in any case, some now go to the dab page at Night Safari, most to Night Safari, Singapore. All pages affected have now been fixed, see my contribs. Thanks for alerting me to the problem here. DES (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Most welcome and thanks again!--Huaiwei (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. Everything seems to be in order. I should have thought to check at "Night Safari, Singapore" -- my bad. Donlammers (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In the Closet (disambiguation)‎
Hi DESiegel. Sorry, I missed that CSD-A10 doesn't cover disambiguation pages. I'll keep that in mind for the future. Anyway, could you advise on the best way to merge In the Closet (disambiguation)‎ with In the closet (disambiguation)‎ (note the capitalization)? I don't think that the topic merits two disambiguation pages, given that two-thirds of the content on the former is already included on the latter. Thanks! Kittensandrainbows (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I had missed that there were two dab pages. I agree they should be merged. One just copies entreis from one to the other, and converts the other to a redir or deletes it, as may seem best. (If deletion seems best, after a merge it can be tagged as G6 housekeeping, provided there is no lost info in the history that needs to be preserved, such as for attributions) DES (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ DES (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Vocabulary of Roman religion
Thank you for your message and helpfulness. I have not yet read the two books but I shall do if they are on google. Me too I am not an expert in Roman things however I am interested in the subject and read some good books, written by Frenchmen alas. Now for editing this article I started reading more, what google has to offer.

I warmly invite every interested person to take part in the editing.

The reason why I started it is pretty simple: if you look at what is written in wikipedia articles under the entries I write about you shall see that they do not deal expressly with the subject of Roman religion. And from that standpoint the panorama is pretty dismal. This is true for sacer, sanctus, ritus, omen, templum and other. Sometimes they offer some partial information mixed with other topics. See eg omen. Sanctus is not holy. Lex is not exactly law in modern sense. But maybe in Anglosaxon it had a similar meaning to Latin. I shall try and make the alterations and additions you propose, especially the translations soon, possibly I shall cut much that is redundant under the entry religio.Aldrasto (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can quite agree this is a topic we need better coverage of. Note that I was not the person who suggested the books. If I can help with the Wikipedia editing and structure part, feel free to let me know. DES (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Project Gutenberg has:
 * The Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism by Franz Cumont at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/22213
 * The Religious Experience of the Roman People From the Earliest Times to the Age of Augustus by W. Warde Fowler at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/23349
 * Social life at Rome in the Age of Cicero by W. Warde Fowler at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/11256
 * The Common People of Ancient Rome by Frank Frost Abbott at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/13226
 * The Religion of Ancient Rome by Cyril Bailey at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/18564
 * The Religion of Numa And Other Essays on the Religion of Ancient Rome by Jesse Benedict Carter at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/18222
 * Pagan and Christian Rome by Rodolfo Amedeo Lanciani at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/22153
 * The History of Rome, Books 01 to 08 by Titus Livius at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/19725 (the other sections of Livy are also available)
 * Atheism in Pagan Antiquity by A. B. Drachmann at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/28312
 * All of these are in the public domain in the US, which mostly means they were published before 1923. Whether any of them is useful i cannot say. But I thought I should make you aware of another possible online resource. DES (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpfulness. I appreciate very much your contribution: particularly the book by J. B. Carter shall be useful, I supposeAldrasto (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC).

Re: Tagging of Tarbabe
That's fine, thanks. I'll ride with the prod and watch the article. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 23:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Tagging of Jodie Allen
Fair enough. I tagged it with Huggle, so I guess the notification template is Huggle's. I didn't realise it was using a non-standard message. – ukexpat (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks. Maybe I'll ask the Huggle maintainer about this. DES (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

let me see it
I am most interested in seeing the article. I was half way evaluating it, looking up policies and guidelines, and keeping a tab on how it qualifies and how it does not qualify. So putting it in my userspace would help me decide. If I think it is a delete, then I am not too interested in DRV.

The trouble with this case is that the person who seems against the editor is the one that is deleting and closing the AFD early. Thank you. Ipromise (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't intend to work on it unless I really start to get interested. For now, I just want to read about the coach and see if it is a crappy article or a decent one. Ipromise (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User talk:Europebusiness
Hello DESiegel, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, User talk:Europebusiness, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Calton. This has been done because the page is a blatant advert that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add " " to the page text, and edit the to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Calton. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of 14:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of American University of Iraq Page
Hi DESiegel - you incorrectly deleted the wikipedia entitled "The American University of Iraq - Sulaimani", citing that similar pages already exist elsewhere. There is one other page entitled "American University of Iraq of Sulaimani" but this is incorrectly titled. If you see the official university website at: www.auis.org, you will quickly see the difference. The page should be re-instituted, as the difference is similar to calling saying the Harvard College page exists, but is entitled "The University of Harvard in Cambridge" - it is not accurate. Please correct your mistake, and allow us to add more content to the correct page. Thank you for your time. Indexing89 (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I thouhgt I explained this at the time. -- On checking, I find that I did, at User talk:Abe Ravelstein. The American University of Iraq - Sulaimani was not merely a "similar page" to American University of Sulaimani, it was a pasted direct copy. Making duplicate articles in this way is against wikipedia practice. it causes confusion, and fails to properly attribute the work of previous editors. If you think that the articel title should be changed, the correct way is to suggest renaming (also called moving) the article on its talk page, Talk:American University of Sulaimani. See also Requested moves and our page on the process of moving/renaming pages. Thus the deleted copy will not be restored, but the existing article can be renamed if there is consensus to do so. Any editor can do the rename, an admin is not required. DES (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Why SHOULDN'T the Rodney Watson article be in mainspace?
The whole point of Wikipedia is that an article does not need to be a finished product to be publicly viewable. By keeping articles-in-progress in mainspace where they can be easily found, they facilitate the kind of collaborative editing that the wiki format is meant for. At Wikipedia, we're not interested in the cloistered, bazaar model of content building. Wikipedia is all about articles growing organically, maybe starting with a sentence or two and then, as people come by and see it, if they have a bit to add they can do so. Keeping unfinished articles shut off in some corner of someone's user space makes this impossible. It's distinctly anti-Wikipedia. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! : 14-0) 00:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That was, to some extant, the way Wikipedia initially operated. Although even then, some standards were insisted on. And since then standards have grown. But what is being insisted on here is not that the article be a "finished product" but that there be some visible evidence that this person is in fact notable. At present there seems no such evidence. In any case you are arguing in the wrong place. I can't make this decision. The decision on this particular article will be made at the DRV discussion; the more general point could be raised at Wikipedia talk:Notability or in an RfC. DES (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What has changed, exactly? I've been here since 2005; in that time, I don't see how the fundamental nature of a wiki (which is what this ultimately stems from) has changed at all.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! : 14-0) 14:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What has changed, as I see it, is the extent to which notability has been insisted on as a pre-condition for having an article. What has also changed IMO is the degree to which sources are being insited on to establish notability. Mind you, I recall plenty of articles being deleted for non-notability in 2006. I recall the debates on the creation of WP:CSD in which I had a hand. Notability and the probability of demonstrating it were significant factors in the formulation of A7. Notability was the key of the debates on the deletions of school articles. What has further changed is the attitude to BLP articles in particular, startling with the Sieganthaler case and growing. In short, the position that sources are never needed except for contentious and challenged facts does not appear to have consensus any longer. Or to put it another way, notability is a fact that can be challenged by putting an article up for deletion, and when so challenged, sources to support that notability must be provided.
 * Mind you, i personally think that some of those expressing strong views on the need for sources for BLPs have gone too far. I am on record extensively with this during the recent RfC on BLPs to that effect. I have in general, been more of an inclusionist than a deletionist -- look at my record of AfDs if you wish (I used to describe myself as a "mergist" on that spectrum). So you are perhaps arguing with the wrong person here. Your points are not without value, but there is, IMO also some value in requiring soem bar to inclusion, some standard for notability. I would be open to different ways of establishing it perhaps, and to possibly different standards. But I think a standard beyond "It exists and is verifiable" is in most cases needed. I exist and am verifiable -- indeed I have had multiple (local) news stories about me when I ran for local political office (and lost), but I do not think that I or another similar person ought to have a Wikipedia article.
 * I suggested, above, that the general issue would need to be raised at WT:N or in an RFC. The terms of your editing restriction would prevent you from commenting in either forum. I understand that you challenge the validity of that restriction. I did not participate in drafting or discussing that restriction, and I am not prepared to debate its validity with you at this time. But if you wish to avoid fighting over it (which i suspect would be likely to result in another block) and want to draft comments for either forum, I would in principal be willing to post them on your behalf, provided they don't to me appear to violate WP:CIVIL or any other applicable standard. whether to do so is entirely up to you, but it has IMO a higher chance of making an actual difference than will discussion with me, even if you could convert me entirely to your views. DES (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As so-called "policy" on Wikipedia merely reflects existing practice, the only way to change so-called "policy" is to change existing practice first, which necessitates convincing individuals. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! : 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 02:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainian Internet Exchange
I don't see much difference in quality of this web page in comparison to, for instance article of the same type, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Internet_Exchange The lack of information from google is because ukrainian internet is not widespread yet. Including information about it would help spread the word about it. I will work on improving the article in the future, but want to mention that I don't see any reason for it's deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkononenko (talk • contribs) 09:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you for your view, but you would do better to make this argument at Articles for deletion/Ukrainian Internet Exchange. I will make a substantive response there. Also, please put new discussions in their own section. It is also helpful to link the article being referred to. I have done both for this discussion. Thank you. DES (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Kmweber
I find your approach in this matter very professional, very anti-drama. Great job. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 21:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Such was my aim. One does not always hit what one aims at. Thanks for your comment. DES (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I also thank you for the enlightenment. It was very nice meeting you. Take care. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 22:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

PacificTimesheet_Company
Hello, I noticed that you speed deleted this page. And I would like to retrieve the page and to make some editting on it. The reason I think this page is a useful resource for Wikipedia is because the "comparing time tracking table" on the wikipedia site contains some companys that the reference links are not there any more(click on the reference links for them, you will see what i mean), or the products have nothing new to offer to your viewer but a simpler version of some the existing ones in the list. Versus Pacific Timesheet has something unique that noone in the list has: it is state rule compliance, california labor law compliance, and it has fully supported Chinese_version and French_Version. Please let me know what do you think and how I can retrieve the page back for more editting. Thank you! Shijianbiao (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Requested articel restored and userfied. Responded at User talk:Shijianbiao DES (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

74.107.145.152 (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)I have updated the page, please let me know if it meets the standard to pubish or not, thanks! One thing I noticed is Wiki doesn't have a page for "Time Off Management", that is a big area related to timesheet products. Pacific Timesheet does that and I am in the process of writing a wiki page for that area after I am done with Pacific Timesheet page. Please let me know what do you think, thanks for your time! 74.107.145.152 (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See my comments on your recent edits at User talk:Shijianbiao/PacificTimesheet Company. As to an article on "Time Off Management", it would need to be written neutrally, and to cite reliable sources that showed that it was a notable subject. DES (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Etiquette
Dear DESiegel, Thanks for your comments on my page and on my article. I'm new to entering information on Wikipedia, but I've been an editor for twenty years. Does it really seem appropriate for Ukepat to address a writer in this manner: "OK one more time, with feeling, there are no supervisors here and no one you can talk to by phone. To seek the views of other editors, please open a discussion at Editor assistance requests. – ukexpat (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC) You are missing the point. There is no one to refer you to." I don't find this statement coming from a representative of an organization to be acceptable. Through my own research I found out about the Wikiettiquete page and the Dispute Resolution page. I'm not sure how Ukepat "bent over backwards to help me." His or her comments were subjective and vague, and not until I was several questions in did he provide any examples. I'm not trying to lobby for any outcome here, but to have this kind of behavior condoned by Wikipedia, in effect, and to have his comments even on the dispute page referring to my objection as "ridiculous" is clearly unprofessional. Thanks, Jim--James Cihlar (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for access to content in deleted article
Sir, Could you provide me access to content in the Reports of Organ Harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China article, as it was around July 2009. There was a lot of material in it which was lost in the delete process. I was thinking of starting a page on The Kilgour-Matas Reports and it would help much if I could have access to the contents. Sincerely, Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was actually called Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China (article names are case sensitive). It was merged into Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China, not deleted. The talk page was deleted.
 * here is the version as of 1 July 2009. And Here is the version as of 11 September 2009. There were many revisions in July and early August 2009, which can be accessed from the links above.
 * I hope this provides you the information you want. DES (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your prompt reply and for making the content available. I have coped the information I wanted from it. I understand the articles were merged, what I meant to say was that a significant portion of the contents were lost in the merge process, as it were UNDUE in the namespace "Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China." The same would be relevant in an article on the Kilgour Matas reports.

Thanks again.

Sincerely, Dilip rajeev (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. it was not deleted in that no admin tools were needed to see it. The older page was converted into a redirect, and the content was preserved in the history of the redirect page. This is often done in merges. DES (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not forget nothing
Thank You very much for Your time! -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Userspace Draft and Noindex
In an MfD discussion yesterday you said "I have added userspace draft which applies NOINDEX." That's very useful, if true, but are you sure? The template documentation doesn't say so. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * More exactly it adds the NOINDEX parameter if and only if it is used in the User or User talk namespaces. I have verified this in the template's code. See the template's talk page. I'm not sure why this isn't in the main template documatation, it may be that we don't want to scare off users creating promotional pages which should use this template but might not if their creators fully understood the consequences. DES (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be a sensible reason. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Dr. Hedayat.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dr. Hedayat.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 20:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Fagin the Jew cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Fagin the Jew cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 21:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:UAS Laboratories Logo.png
Thank you for uploading File:UAS Laboratories Logo.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 21:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou
Hi, Thanx for the links on my talkpage. They have been useful. Whew! So I just need to make some more edits and be a 4 day old member to upload the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mage007 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 15 March 2010 Mage007 (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are quite welcome. I am glad I was able to be of some help. That is correct, to upload a file you need to have an account at least 4 days old and that has made at least 2 10 edits. This is to help control spammers and vandals, who in the past uploaded images, including porn images, quite rapidly after getting accounts. Please remeber to sign posts on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). The software will convert this to your username and a timestamp, or your custom signature and a timestamp if you have set one in your preferences. Do not sign article pages, however. DES (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess you meant 10 edits (instead of 210 written above) and yeah I have been trying to work with the four tildes, but im just forgetful at times . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mage007 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for messing things up again :( Mage007 (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem w all make errors at times, as I did with "210". DES (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:File:Dr. Hedayat.JPG
-  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Brews ohare's topic ban appeal
Just to give you a courtesy that the ban discussion has been moved to WP:AN as (un)ban discussions normally go there. Thank you, –MuZemike 03:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

David Pearl (businessman)
I see you have been doing a little clean up, as have I. One thing that looks awful is the referencing style/format, but I am not sure I have the energy at the moment to do anything about it. The tone of the article still looks a little promo to me... – ukexpat (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact i edit conflicted with you a couple of times. I don't like the reference style, but it is officially allowed by WP:CITE. I will mention it on the talk page. DES (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk page mention made. DES (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Fight pastor
Thanks. The original author added several significant references after I tagged it. Frankly, I didn't think it would be notable, but an article in the New York Times is certainly enough to clear the speedy bar, and probably to keep it for good, though the article still needs work. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am glad some references have been added, they had not been when I saw the article. I was referring to its state when you tagged it for speedy deletion. Please remember that WP:CSD says that "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." (Emphasis altered) I would put it that if a claim would avoid deletion at AFD if multiple high-quality sources are found to support it, then it is enough to avoid A7 with zero sources. Please do keep this in mind when considering A7 tags and deletions in future. DES (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)