User talk:Dan1679/Archive010

Re: Question
That's what I suspected the reason was. I see that an exception has been made this time, though, as I thought it should have been. Also, sorry about my...erm...less-than-constructive edits. 71.192.31.140 (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think admins have some discretion if there's severe vandalism. Or, maybe he's just following one of the policies "Ignore All Rules". Either way, it gives us a breather for a while!
 * About your vandalism, there's really no need to apologize, but if you feel bad, poke around a bit and help out some. I'll leave a welcome message on your talk page to get you started. --AbsolutDan (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of B.C. Kochmit
An article that you have been involved in editing, B.C. Kochmit, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Jeff G. ツ 19:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Advert on the Mobile Commerce page
Hi someone has put an ad for their company on the m-commerce page (about the browser) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.144.179 (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Selection process for marking articles for deletion
I will be interviewed about the deletion process on EN-WP and would like to provide information as factual and accurate as possible. If you can spare a few moments, can you please answer these two questions? Thanks, Dandv (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC).


 * 1) Ho do you find articles to mark for deletion?
 * 2) Given several such articles, how do you choose which ones to mark for deletion?


 * Easy enough,
 * Semi-randomly; when I sit down to do some editing, my starting point is always one of 3 places: Monitoring new page creation (New Page Patrol), monitoring recent changes or existing items on my watch list (items accumulated from the above 2). Any article I tag for deletion was either originated from #1 or #2 above, or was linked to in one of the above.
 * Generally I don't discriminate; if I see 3 very similar articles worthy of deletion or at least a deletion discussion (AfD), all 3 will be up for a nomination. I qualify that with "generally" because I don't always have the time/energy/desire/etc to do all that work. In that case I'll add the others to a "to do" list or my watch list. However, if 1 or 2 of those 3 articles are better off (e.g. topics that are clearly notable, but no one's taken the time to dig up sources, or the article already has better sources), I'll use the appropriate cleanup tag (ones that indicate the article needs additional sources). It always comes down to the quality of the sources; a single mention in a nationally published news source (e.g. NY Times) carries a lot more weight than scattered blog postings or trivial mentions.
 * Cheers, --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleting MojoMojo again after two years
I see that you re-listed MojoMojo for deletion again, two years after getting it deleted for the first time. The claim this time was:

the user decided (incorrectly, I believe) that the topic suddenly was notable enough to re-introduce to normal article space. Some sources have been added since, but they seem to be either all blogs, trivial mentions or other non-reliable sources.

Actually, the article had at least one reliable reference - a section in a book on Catalyst, the web application framework that powers MojoMojo. Here is a picture of the first page about MojoMojo in the book.

Kindly review your deletion decision, and please restore the MojoMojo article. -- Dandv (talk) 07:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I did see the reference, and considered it prior to initiating the AfD nomination. I believe the source to be s what's considered "trivial", as MojoMojo appears to be given just a brief mention in a series of examples. As no other sources come close to being considered reliable, I stand by my nomination of the article.


 * However, I'm of course not the final word here. You're welcome to take the matter up with the deletion review folks.


 * You're also welcome to contact the admin (I'm just the user who nominated the article for deletion) who closed the discussion, User:Ron Ritzman. It's generally up to the admin to determine consensus and also determine if the justification is there to delete. Perhaps you could convince Ron of the merits of the source. --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The section on MojoMojo in the book is 3 pages long. Anyway, I'll file a DRV. In the meantime, can you please check the notability of DokuWiki and Svnwiki? Thanks, Dandv (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure I'll take a look, prob this weekend --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, Svnwiki definitely looks to be non-notable. I've proded it. DokuWiki however looks to be moderately notable. A cursory glance at Google hits suggests that it's one of the top wiki software in use. Nevertheless, it is lacking sources, so I've tagged the article accordingly. If good sources aren't provided it can be AfD'd. Cheers --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Svnwiki
I have removed the prod tag from Svnwiki, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! TerriersFan (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice, I hadn't previously caught that it was already prod'd. --AbsolutDan (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting
Message delivered by Dominic at 09:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.

Boston Wiknic
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Meetup/Boston at 19:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting
You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Quixotic plea
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. —  03:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

This Friday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA
You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Sunday July 16: New England Wiknic @ Cambridge, MA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)