User talk:Delldot/Archive 19

Attachment theory
Ready for more I think. Fainites barley 21:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, coming up but things will likely be slow for a bit. Give me another nudge if I forget.   delldot   talk  22:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine. No big rush. Fainites barley 22:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with MDD article
Delldot,

Your copyediting and the reviews/comments on the MDD article are excellent! Thank you for helping improve the article. Paul Gene (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Aww, thanks so much for the kind words Paul!  delldot   talk  22:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Scientific citations
Hi, thanks for adding the shortcut. Shortcuts are normally added directly into the subcat template, but I don't think that's important. Since all the other guideline shortcuts (that I can think of) use abbreviations of words in the order they appear in the title (when they abbreviate multiple words), maybe SCICITE would be better? (Feel free to respond here, or on my talk page, or not at all.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable, I have no problem if you'd like to make any changes you think are good. Yeah SCICITE might be better, that one could be created too.  If it's all the same to you I'd like to keep CITESCI too (if not on the page, at least not deleted) since it was the most intuitive thing to me so perhaps it will be to others too.  I'm of the opinion that redirects are cheap anyway.  But yeah, if you want to make SCICITE and replace CITESCI on the page, or list them both, go for it.  Peace,  delldot   talk  16:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Carl/CBM (see his talk page) prefers SCICITE and SCG, and per WP:TWOSHORTCUTS, we can have 3 but should only mention 2 in the shortcut box.  But please let us know if you feel strongly either way. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good! Thanks for taking care of it and for being so communicative.   delldot   talk  17:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My pleasure! (unwatching). - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Unanticipated barnstars are the best! Thanks a lot! WLU (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, it was very deserved. :-) delldot   &nabla;.  03:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Huntington's
Thanks to your critique of Huntington's Disease the article qquality has improved explosively...thankyou! I know you have addressed this already, but could you sign off the ssessment ( ongoing issues includedd in next GA assesment by JFW - crazily someone has put it up for GSN again!!)  cheers .... Lee LeeVJ (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're asking me to do, sorry. Should I respond to your responses?  Do you think you addressed JFW's previous comments?  If you haven't had time to yet, I'd seriously consider asking the person who nominated the article to withdraw the nomination.  If they haven't been working on the article, they really shouldn't be nominating it anyway, and either way it was discourteous not to ask you, who've clearly been putting a lot of work in, what you thought about another GAN.  I can ask them if you like but I'm about to go to bed for tonight and may not be around till tomorrow night.   delldot   &nabla;.  04:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * no, just a sign of, that all issues addsresed, except those included in current GA review by JFW ... so these are the only points to be addressed, hope that makes sense.. cos right now, I don't :) LeeVJ (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

fair use images
Thanks for pointing out the missing rationales at Homosexuality in SF. I was using the Science fiction article as a guide for images (as it is the title article for the only involved wikiproject).

At that article's last GA candiate discussion, it was said that the images need rationales, but no one said that they require more discussion within the article. As HiSF has whole paragraphs dedicated the the book with images, i thought this would be enough. Has Science Fiction got it wrong? The book-images there are not discussed at all. There is no point in me writing the rationales if they will be removed at GAC anyway, but this doesn't seem to be applied in some cases - so i need to know how much discussion is enough :-) Yobmod (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't done a whole lot of work with WP:FU, but as I understand it the criteria are pretty strict. I don't think you'll get away with a book cover if just the book is discussed; rather, the image itself would probably need to be relevant to the article (which I can see some being, if you're discussing cover art and so on).  Do you see the distinction I'm drawing between an image that's decorative and one that's informative or necessary for understanding of the topic?  So I'd definitely say if the passage discusses the cover art, a picture of the book cover would increase the reader's understanding of the topic, whereas it wouldn't necessarily if the passage just discusses the content of the book.  However, as I say, I'm not the best authority on this, so you should probably check with others.  If you read WP:FU there's a list of examples of acceptable and unacceptable uses that could give you more of an idea of how strict the criteria are.  Also, I'd look at related FAs and see how they use FU images (I usually hunt through the assessment pages of related wikiprojects, e.g. Category:FA-Class science fiction articles).  I wouldn't rely on a B class article like Scifi because it hasn't necessarily been through any rigorous review process and it's therefore entirely possible that it's got problems.  I think if you look at the FAs you'll see they avoid FU images wherever possible.  At any rate, I think I removed the images without rationales (however I didn't do anything about the images for which the rationales were weak).  Hope this is helpful, definitely let me know if I can explain more or be of any help. Peace,   delldot   &nabla;.  05:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks! I left the ones you rmvd out for now. I think some can stay and be discussed, but others must go, so i'll work out which :-). Thanks!Yobmod (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with Howard Norman!
Bless you heart for taking a newbie under your wing. This was my first contribution other than minor edits and adding links to existing articles.

I appended your NY Times find under External Links and will look for other supporting documentation.

So what happens from here? How does an article get promoted into general readership? Should I do something to promote the availability to the Wiki community?

I also have two other author bios on Sandra Scofield and Max Crawford that are about ready to go. Should I add them to my User Page? How do I distinguish them as separate articles and get comment on them individually?

I'm not shy about this stuff, and writer's block is a stranger to me. So I could probably contribute regularly and help others as I gain familiarity with the process. Certainly I use Wikipedia all the time and really value the work you folks have put into this resource!

Hope this was the right way to answer your post,

SwcJholmes (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, this is a fine way to answer my post. That's so exciting that you're interested in helping out more!  I'm glad to help however I can.  About creating separate articles in your userspace, you can use a forward slash to create subpages of your user page, so you could have User:SwcJholmes/Sandra Scofield and User:SwcJholmes/Max Crawford (or name them whatever you want, so long as it starts with User:SwcJholmes/).  You could also directly start them in the mainspace, but if you want to be cautious you can start them in your userspace and I can look them over for you before moving them to the mainspace.  You can use the 'move' button to send your article to the mainspace (I believe the move button shows up once your account is 7 days old and you've made 20 edits).  If you don't have a move button yet I can move it for you.  I'm happy with the article as it is because I think it meets WP:V but of course the more sources you have the better.  You can always add to the article while it's in the mainspace.  I'm psyched that you've started contributing to the project!  Let me know what I can do to help!   delldot on a public computer   talk  03:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Environment Agency
Thanks Delldot. Great feedback on the Environment Agency article: I'll attempt to knock-off the improvements you've suggested. I'm a bit busy at work ATM, so hopefully others will at least make a start. If you don't mind, I'll "poke" you again when I think it's ready for you to look at again. Thanks again! RTFArt (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, I'd love to see how it turns out. Poke away. :-)  delldot on a public computer   talk  03:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

New Sandra Scofield article available for review, needs help
Greetings, Delldot!

I attempted to create a new section in my userpage but I don't think I got it. (I don't have a nifty "new section" tab at the top like you do.) So I still can't move the Howard Norman article separately.

There are a few other issues with Scofield:
 * I don't have a "Contents" box like in Norman and don't see that listed in the Norman code so can't duplicate.
 * The footnotes 5 and 6 don't seem to link properly or appear in the reflist.

Could you please take a look and tell me where I went wrong?

Your ever-grateful servant,

SwcJholmes (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, I don't think I explained it very well. I was suggesting actually making a separate page for Sandra.  Any page beginning with User:SwcJholmes/ is "in your userspace" (and therefore kind of yours), so I was suggesting creating a page at User:SwcJholmes/Sandra Scofield.  That way it's its own page and you can move it independently to the mainspace whenever you're ready.  I'll go ahead and do it for you, let me know if you like it (I can undo it if you want).


 * I think the reflist thing had to do with the fact that reflist appeared twice; it was only paying attention to the first mention. The table of contents shows up automatically (I dunno how... it's magic :P ) after there are a certain number of sections, three maybe.  You can force it to show up in a certain place by putting or force it not to appear by putting.


 * To create a new page in your userspace, you can do either of two things. One, you can type the name you want it to have into the search box at left (so for Max, type in User:SwcJholmes/Max Crawford) and then click on the red "create this article" link from the search page.  Or two, you can make a link to it on any page by typing the name in double square brackets like this: User:SwcJholmes/Max Crawford and then press 'show preview' button and click on the red link (don't actually save the page unless you want there to really be a link to the new article on that page.)  Alternately, you can just follow this link: User:SwcJholmes/Max Crawford, because I've already typed the thing in double square brackets here.


 * Do you see the 'move' button I was talking about at the top of the page? Should be next to the history button. If not I can move it for you, let me know.  Peace,   delldot   &nabla;.  21:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Caaaaake
First of all, thanks friend!

Second, how did you know? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That you like chocolate cake? Psychic powers. ;) delldot   &nabla;.  20:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not chocolate, Nostradamus. How did you know it was my birthday? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You done told me! Also, ping! You have email!   delldot   &nabla;.  20:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey!
Deldot, I have not caught up with you in a long time. I thought I should just say that I'm fine and my project on Wikipedia are good. How about you? I would like to hear how your are going.

WikiSandbox1 (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good hearing from you WikiSandbox1! Glad you're doing well.  I'm good, but I've been busy in real life lately and haven't had much time for Wikipedia. :(  Thanks for keeping in touch, definitely drop in from time to time.   delldot   &nabla;.  16:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Oxygen toxicity
I never took the time to thank you for your helpful comments on Oxygen toxicity, so with apologies for belatedness, Thanks!! Gene Hobbs has done a complete copyedit of the article to meet the comments on its GA review. Don't worry if you're busy, but if you do have a moment to spare, any observations you might have on the latest version would be much appreciated. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds great, I'm glad you've continued improving it. I'll have a look when I get a chance, not sure when that'll be though, sorry.   delldot on a public computer   &nabla;.  13:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Page on Sergey Schepkin
Hi! I've been using Wikipedia for years and decided that I wanted to make a page on my piano professor at Carnegie Mellon University. He is definitely worthy of such an article and already appears on several pages pertaining to his recordings. The problem is, it looks like there was a page created on him last year that you deleted. I'm guessing that whoever did it went to his website and copied his "biography", because your deletion comment was "looks like a resume", which is what they're supposed to look like. If I am able to make this page, I am going to use multiple sources, possibly even including Sergey himself, and compile it in an unbiased, objective, neutral manner so that someone who comes across his name can find out who he is. Feel free to have a look at his website at www.schepkin.com before getting back to me with a response. Thanks in advance. - Joshua

P.S. Just as you said on your page, I'll say back to you, don't be afraid to offend me. I'm new to this and have a lot to learn. If there is some blatent reason that I shouldn't create this article, just tell me and I'm sure I'll understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metsushoryuuk3n (talk • contribs) 20:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Joshua, thanks much for the note and for being willing to contribute to the project, I think your approach is great. You're exactly right about the multiple sources, that's probably the single most important thing to have.  I think you'll do a good job because you seem to understand Wikipedia's aim, but I do recommend taking a look at some of the relevant guidelines first:  the notability guideline for people (to make sure he really should have an article here), WP:COI (to decide for yourself whether you're too close to the subject, I think you're probably ok though), your first article to get some ideas for how to write and reliable sources (to make sure your sources are up to par).  I think the most important thing in determining whether the article will be kept is how good your sources are.  I think as long as he's written about in multiple reliable sources and every fact in the article is attributable to a reliable source you'll be ok. It's fine to quote Sergey as long as it's been published in a reliable source, but it can't be anything that hasn't already been published (see WP:NOR).  Definitely let me know if you have any questions or need any help or anything, I'm glad to assist however I can.  Thanks again for helping out with the project and taking the time to make sure you do a good job! Peace,  delldot   &nabla;.  01:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Up with your head
Goodone121 is doing his thing again on Huntington's disease. I've listed him on ANI again. JFW | T@lk  20:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Bummer, thanks for handling that though.  delldot on a public computer   &nabla;.  02:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Old template
You removed this template rather than deleting the templates where it was placed? Why on Earth ... ? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it wasn't a great solution. But the template didn't list what template these were redundant to, so it wasn't clear whether they were speediable.  Admittedly, I could have done a bunch of digging for each one, but I guess I was looking for more of a quick fix. :/  Since you're here though, I was curious, why did you tag these instead of deleting them yourself? Peace,   delldot   &nabla;.  05:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * T3 requires seven days. So I tagged them a while ago and never got around to deleting them (or rather, nobody got around to it). I'll deal with them in the next few days, I suppose. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, right, duh. Sorry about that, I guess you can find them all in my contribs.   delldot   &nabla;.  05:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take another look at. This and are very static (if shared) IPs committing the exact same acts of vandalism for months straight. The editor behind the vandalism will switch to one when the other is blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Someguy. I've taken another look at, here's what I see: it's a shared IP, so we can't be sure it's the same person. The last warning is a lvl 2, given at 22:01, after the IP's last edit, which was a couple hours ago.  As you may know, AIV is a rapid response thing and is only for vandalism that is currently ongoing.  Also, looking at the edits, it's not clear why you think they're vandalism.  It seems like at the very least they're making the edits in good faith, although they've definitely got a POV thing going on.  For cases where it's not clear that the new user is trying to be disruptive, it's encouraged that we discuss with them if there are any problems with their edits; that way they can learn and won't feel bitten.  If someone keeps editing disruptively after being warned (e.g. with POV) reports should go to WP:ANI.


 * , also shared, hasn't edited since the 25th. I don't think I was the one who removed this one (if that's what happened).  But I agree with whoever did that it shouldn't be on AIV today, since AIV is only for vandals that are active right now.  I'm definitely willing to continue discussing, so definitely let me know if you have any more questions or whatnot.  Peace,  delldot   &nabla;.  23:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooh, I hadn't noticed the bad BLP violations from the second one (and yeah, I see that they're likely the same person). Yeah, that's bad, definitely report to ANI if that goes on.   delldot   &nabla;.  23:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Obesity
Hey Delldot

Thanks for the edits. WRT to children: Childhood obesity has it own page. Will work on a few things over the next few days if I have time. Have a couple nights coming up so hopefully can get a bit down then.

The section Many countries and groups have published reports pertaining to obesity was written by T@lk  and he was very resistant to incorporating it into the text. This was sort of a compromise. Hopefully he will come give his input.

By the way. I do not do spelling and grammar. Therefore not really able to edit out some of the errors. Your help is much appreciated.

Doc James (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries about the spelling and grammar, I can correct what I see and maybe you can get someone else to give it a quick copy edit before I promote it. If you would do the search and replace for "then" when it should be "than" (perhaps cut and paste into a word document, correct the errors, and cut and paste it back) that would save me time.  But spelling and grammar are easy to fix, I'm much more concerned about the organization and especially accuracy.  Peace,  delldot   &nabla;.  15:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Smoking and weight gain
The line The weight gain over a 10-year period that was associated with the cessation of smoking (i.e., the gain among smokers who quit that was in excess of the gain among continuing smokers) was 4.4 kg for men and 5.0 kg for women. is in the PMID given. It is then followed by For men, about a quarter (2.3 of 9.6 percentage points) and for women, about a sixth (1.3 of 8.0 percentage points) of the increase in the prevalence of overweight could be attributed to smoking cessation within the past 10 years covering the other half of the statement. Doc James (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weight gain and overweight are different from obesity, and our article does not mention a 10-year period. Therefore I feel the article is misrepresenting the source.  It's really important not to distort what our sources say. Peace,   delldot   &nabla;.  15:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. What we have currently does say Those who quit smoking gain on average 4–5 kilograms over ten years.  We can change it to overweight from obesity.

--Doc James (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks much for that. But if it's changed to be a sentence about overweight rather than obesity, what's it doing in the obesity article?  Shouldn't that material be covered in overweight?  Obesity is such a big subject (heh heh heh) that surely we should be leaving out anything that's not directly pertinent?  However, I'm not nearly as concerned about this as I am about accurately representing what the sources say.   delldot   &nabla;.  16:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * found a better source http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/8/1510 pertaining to obesity. Will work on it but patients call.

--Doc James (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Great source, good job finding that! I notice that it says that decreases in smoking do not have a large effect on obesity rates though.  Must be a population vs. individual thing.   delldot   &nabla;.  16:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * another which is better yet: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/87/4/801 --Doc James (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, great job! It also has the statement "Smoking and obesity are leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide", so you can use it to back up the other sentence I had a problem with (the US-specific one) about obesity and mortality/morbidity.  So this one says smoking does increase obesity.  So I guess we have one of each viewpoint now!   delldot   &nabla;.  17:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted coordinates template
When you get rid of coordinate, please note Template_talk:Coordinate/Samples_1; the sub-template Coordinate/doc, and those listed at Category:Coordinate template; plus that category and Category:Coordinate template articles to fix & Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yeah, I wasn't sure about the sub-templates like Template:CoordinateLINK. So they should all be deleted?  Definitely the /doc and the cats should go.  Thanks for clearing that up.  Peace,  delldot   &nabla;.  22:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They're not used anywhere else, so I'd say so, yes. Thank you.Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks, I was just scratching my head about that. And bless you for helping orphan that sucker.  Want to have a go at converting the transclusions?  You'll be my favorite person ever.  delldot   &nabla;.  22:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool - I think I've already done them all. Do I get a badge to wear, or do you just come round and do my housework? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You get the "delldot's favorite person ever badge" (pictured right). As for the housework, depends... what kind of housework?   delldot   &nabla;.  22:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Any or all of it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tell ya what, you enjoy that badge now, ya hear? :P  delldot   &nabla;.  22:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Obesity as a leading preventable cause of death.
The ref I gave was just for the usa. But from my review of the literature and from the rest of the info in the article I felt that is was appropriate to make that comment. I have however found the exact quote in a published journal article and have changed the line back to its original to match. Doc James (talk) 06:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, great, I'm glad you've fixed that. But do you understand my point about how it's important not to misrepresent what a source says?  If you're putting something in of your own that you don't think needs a source (and I would disagree about that in this case), you cannot cite a source after it that does not say that.  If you've done that anywhere else in the article, it needs to be changed; at the very least remove the source so it doesn't look like the source is endorsing the statement, and provide sources that do where needed.  delldot   &nabla;.  19:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Obesity
Most of the info is from the USA. They are a big country and do lots of research. This is were the problem started and they are a decade research wise ahead of the rest of the world. There have used info from other countries when available but often it isn't.

The morbidity table was ordered based on the number of items in each box thus trying to keep it small. Cancer is not a system but it is a useful way to view it rather then adding the cancers to each of there own systems.

I do not distinguish between the thens therefore not really able to correct them. --Doc James (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly understand that problem, I deal with it a lot in the articles I write. I still think it's important not to give undue weight to the US in the article, and it's very important not to present US-specific facts as though they're worldwide.  So all US-only facts should have "in the US" or similar in the sentence.  We should try to present facts from elsewhere when they're available.


 * I think cancer and psychology should be pulled out of the table and left in plain prose, otherwise the table doesn't make sense.  delldot   &nabla;.  19:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Template deletion
Hi Delldot! Thank you for closing the discussion on Template:Infobox Arab villages depopulated. I am currently trying to orphan the template, but the creator seems to be reverting my edits. I am asking you to please oversee the process personally, if you have time. In the meantime, I will continue removing the template from articles in order to orphan it per procedure. Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 12:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like this had already been orphaned and deleted by the time I logged on and saw this message. Are we good now, or is there anything more that needs to be done?  Thanks much for dealing with the orphaning, I was very much not looking forward to that.  delldot   &nabla;.  17:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not for the moment, thanks :) The admin Number 57 helped with the orphaning in the end. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

...
thanks, no problem. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 19:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:U.S. State Senate Majority Leaders TfD Closure
I noticed that you closed the TfD discussion for Template:U.S. State Senate Majority Leaders. While I certainly do not object to your decision, I noticed that you forgot to remove the TfD template after closing the discussion. I would have done it myself, but I am not sure if such actions are reserved only for Wikipedia administrators. --TommyBoy (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * D'oh! That's it--I'm writing a sticky note that says "remove dumbass" and sticking to my monitor. Thanks for the heads up.  I think it would have been fine for you to do it but it's also fine that you chose to be cautious and let me know.   delldot   &nabla;.  20:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Mpdb movie
Hello, I noticed that result was to delete Mpdb movie, but the template is still in existence. Is this an oversight? — Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not an oversight, I was just too lazy to remove all the instances of it myself at the time, so I moved it to the Holding cell where it's sitting waiting to be orphaned. I'll probably get to it at some point, unless someone else (hint hint) beats me to it.  :P  Non-admins can orphan the template then move it to the "ready to be deleted" section of the holding cell.  Thanks for the note, though, I certainly don't mind getting a heads up if there's a possibility I've made an oversight.  Peace,  delldot   &nabla;.  20:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Template: Biota
Thanks for pointing me to WP:DRV, which suggests that I discuss the matter with you, as the closing admin, first. I am happy to do so.

I am concerned that though you acted with good faith, you closed and deleted biota with no consensus to do so. You did say it was a "tough one". Several of those initially calling for a deletion subsequently agreed to compromise proposals. I would ask you to please reconsider, or at least reopen the listing for further debate. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'm glad to discuss it, and I'm glad to have my decisions reviewed, and to be corrected if I'm wrong. On the other hand I think you should try to have a really honest look at whether you think there really wasn't consensus there, or whether there was a consensus, just one that you disagreed with. I know determining consensus is not just a numbers game, but I counted 5 deletes (albeit some with reservations) plus the nom, and one keep (yours) plus an "I guess it could be useful in some situations".  I didn't see anything indicating that most people had changed their minds; most people strike their comments if they do.  Admittedly, I could have missed something, care to point out which folks you thought had switched position?  (In my mind the agreement to change the documentation of start date and end date doesn't really have bearing on this discussion since WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason to keep something.)  If you're able to point out something big that I've missed I'll certainly consider it, but the consensus would still have looked pretty strong even with fewer 'deletes'.  So I guess my position as of now is that I'm not willing to reopen the debate or change my decision, but of course if it's decided at DRV that that should be done, then that's fine.  But I'm pretty confident that folks DRV will see the consensus I saw, so I view opening up a DRV as kind of a waste of everyone's time.  But if you want to do that it's of course up to you. But yeah, I'm glad to keep discussing it instead of or before DRV if you are. Peace,  delldot   &nabla;.  20:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure; of the five you counted:


 * If you were to offer to remove the "vernacular" portion, I would probably be neutral—I don't see a pressing need, neither do I see harm. (Curtis Clark)
 * I for one am not an unreserved delete. If this was constrained to scientific names ... then I would be ambivalent. (Hesperian}
 * Removal of the vernacular parameter would make the instances of this template lighter and more acceptable (Eugène van der Pijll)

I agreed to remove the vernacular name and have the template just used for scientific names. I believe that I had also successfully refuted several of the initial reasons given for deletion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it was definitely not straightforward, hence my "tough one" classification. I think if those three had switched to keep than it definitely would have been a no consensus, but none really did; at most they went neutral or ambivalent.  Even if these folks had struck their comments that leaves the other 'deletes' (3 I believe since Hesperian was the nom); seems to me this is still a rough consensus (especially given the normally low participation in TFDs).  So unfortunately this is not enough here to make me overturn my decision, but I'm still of course open to discussion.  Peace,  delldot   &nabla;.  21:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what difference striking out would make; in the face of unambiguous statements such as the above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm saying that it's not clear that these folks now think it shouldn't be deleted; rather it looked to me like they were just saying it was less objectionable. I guess these statements didn't seem all that unambiguous to me.  Even if all these people had retracted their comments it looks like there might still have been a rough consensus (of course I'd have to reread the whole thing again to be sure about that).  Maybe if there's a DRV these folks can clarify their positions. Peace,   delldot   &nabla;.  21:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, see Deletion review/Log/2008 October 5. Thanks for your time. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit war
hey! it's been a while. my bad, but i've been exceedingly busy. if you look you'll see i've added a 'this user is a thespian' userbox. anyway, please take a look at Andrew P. Harris, where an edit war is raging. Pax vobiscum.Toyokuni3 (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * just so you know where i'm coming from. although we share an alma mater, andy harris is right wing loony fringe and i wouldn't vote for him for dogcatcher.but an edit war is an edit war.Toyokuni3 (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hoo, that's an ugly one, good job bringing this up. Unfortunately I've never been much of an enforcer type, but I'll leave them both a note and either block them or bring it to the edit war noticeboard if they keep it up.  Feel free to report this to the WP:3RRN yourself if I'm not around or don't handle it well.  Keep up the good work as always Toyokuni.  Peace,  delldot   &nabla;.  21:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :)
Thanks for giving me at least a chance to cite my sources, there'll be more and more in the future. Thank you. SCNTM (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't thank me, I just closed it how I saw it. :) Great to hear those sources are on their way, let me know if you need any help or anything. Peace, delldot   &nabla;.  06:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Harris article
As far as I'm concerned there's nothing to discuss. One editor keeps making the same highly POV and objectionable edit &mdash; almost a textbook definition of an NPOV violation &mdash; so I revert it. I have repeatedly invited this person to make an acceptable edit instead, but he keeps just reinstating the one that even he doesn't claim is acceptable, and demanding that I go through it and excise the objectionable parts. I don't think that's my job; I'm happy with the article the way it is, but I don't object to improvements, so long as they are sourced and NPOV. His insistence on reinstating the bad edit borders on vandalism. -- Zsero (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll take you at your word since I haven't actually looked at the content. My point stands: if someone ends up getting blocked for edit warring, I'm going to block both edit warriors.  Why get yourself into trouble when, if they're the one misbehaving, you could bring up their behavior and just get them into trouble?  Peace,   delldot   &nabla;.  22:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Ok, thanks. I just asked because, being I a "guest" in the en.wiki didn't know exactly what are the procedures in those cases so I just didn't want to look like an elephant in a China shop :) Anyway I'm going to move an article; the Italian rugby union player "Christian Bezzi" is to be moved to "Cristian Bezzi" as it's his actual name. Thank you for your assistence.  Sergio † BC™  (Write me!)  22:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackcat it (talk • contribs)


 * Sounds good, let me know if you need any help or anything. It's fine to be bold but it's also always fine to ask about anything you're not sure about. :-) Peace,  delldot   &nabla;.  01:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI
You have an email from me. There's no rush in responding so please take your time. I just wanted to let you know a few things going on. Take care and I hope you are well. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  15:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome
Looks like we made short work of the 6.

- J Greb (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ^5! Thanks again. delldot   &nabla;.  02:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Estado
hello again favourite administrator. (figure a little flattery can't hurt.) please see Estado and my comment thereon and give me your thoughts. paix.Toyokuni3 (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Flattery will get you everywhere. :P I agree, plus WP:NOT. If there's more to say about the term, that could be added but as is it should be deleted.  Prod would probably be ok but you could AFD to be safe.  When it's deleted, don't forget to take it out of that template.  It looks like the other articles in that template may have the same problem, although it looks like they may be trying to serve as disambiguation pages for different places referred to by those names (like the way some folks call the District of Columbia "the District").  delldot   &nabla;.  22:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey! (2)
It's been a while :) Need any help with anything? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for the note, good hearing from you. No, I'm good, haven't been doing much writing lately. ^5 on SAH making the main page!  What's been up with you?  delldot   &nabla;.  22:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was shocked myself to see it there today. I have no idea who nominated it! It's been subject to heavy vandalism and not much improvement throughout today though. Not much really, I'm a bit ill at the moment and working hard in college so not doing all that much here at the moment. Probably the same situation as you. Feel free to give me a shout if you need any help with anything :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sweet, thanks for the offer. Best of luck with college.   delldot   &nabla;.  23:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Forgot to ask, everything okay off-wiki too? :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, thanks for asking. :)   delldot   &nabla;.  23:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it :) Speak soon. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The revert
My original message

In essence, the situation was - I didn't need to discuss, you did. Making a major change for no apparent reason based solely on your own opinion without consulting stakeholders (in this case the Australian WikiProject) and seemingly without any reference to the actual TfD result (which correctly nominated an unrelated redundant template for deletion) is generally not how we do things. The attitude of "I can do whatever I want but if you want to stop me, thou shalt discuss" is actually pretty patronising, as is the assumption that a template that took four months to develop and is used on thousands of Australian articles (and has coexisted with Infobox Settlement quite purposely) is redundant to an international one that doesn't reflect our local circumstances or needs. I'm sorry if this comes over a bit harsh, but I think it needed saying. Orderinchaos 03:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm, thanks for giving me a new way of looking at things. You're right, I should have discussed changing the infobox, and I hadn't put any thought into the infobox or the time it took to develop.  I was careless in thinking that no one would mind. I guess it was hypocritical of me to get frustrated because something I put a lot of time into was reverted, when I was actually doing that same thing by removing the infobox.  To look at it still another way, I was bold and you reverted, and now we're discussing, so in that sense neither of us really fouled.


 * We still have the situation where the deleted template and the coordinates template have been removed without the functionality being put into the Australia template, do you have any thoughts on my ideas about that? Maybe I should bring it to the Australia template's talk page.  Thanks much for the comment about not wanting to sound harsh, and I hope I don't either, I'm certainly not interested in fighting.  Peace,   delldot   &nabla;.  04:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries - and thanks for your response - it's appreciated. As for the coordinates thing, it already seems to be there, but I'm not sure if, or how, it works. (See "loc-x" and "loc-y" in the bottom example on Template:Infobox Australian Place/Blank). If you want to try getting it to work, Palm Beach should be at the extreme northeast of the Sydney metro, whilst Bundeena will be in the extreme southeast. There was some talk at the template talk page a while ago about having separate image and map fields, but I'm not sure if that went anywhere. Orderinchaos 04:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in but see Kyneton, Victoria for an example of the coordinates field in use and Brisbane for use of an image and map field. Not sure if either example is useful, but FWIW there they are. Maybe [[Template talk:Infobox Australian Place is a better place to take this. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 04:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks to you both for the helpful info and for saving me the embarrassment of proposing a change that was already implemented on the talk page. ;) I have no idea why I assumed that wasn't already there, or why everyone keeps saying I should stop sniffing glue. :P  delldot   &nabla;.  06:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not a tech-savvy person, but only a mere writer and dabbler. I am sure at the template talk page there will be someone who can help. I had some input when it was being developed but had no role in coding it. The infobox was the result of a lot of discussion and we are reasonably fond of it now, but I am not opposed to bringing it into line with Infobox settlement functionality and aesthetics, as long as nothing is lost and it remains flexible. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 07:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks anyway, I'll try on the talk page.  delldot   &nabla;.  01:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

*hugs*
--Gurch (talk) 03:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * *hugs* delldot   &nabla;.  03:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

bombs awaayyyy....
'nuff said. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Comune
Was it you who recently deleted (after due TFD debate) Comune? It's been recreated. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Got it, thanks for the heads up about that.  delldot   &nabla;.  06:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
I know I say on my talk page that I like to keep all the talk in one page, but I can't leave you a thank-you note on my own talk page!

So, thanks for awarding me my first barnstar! It's an honor to receive one from you :)

Oh, I feel so warm and fuzzy inside now :P –  Quadrivial Mind  (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well deserved! The first of many I hope :)  delldot   &nabla;.  08:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)