User talk:Denimadept/Archive 8

You are not the problem
Wasn't you. There was an intervention here that involves other matters. Some of our editors have the subtlety. collegiality and respect of a twelve pound hammer. No worries. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I noticed. I'm considering speaking with him about it.  He's getting all upset.  Life's too short to bother, at least over this sort of thing. - Denimadept (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is probably not the most important Tri bridge in the world. I think the one in Nagasaki is.

However, I would like to find sources, but it will probably take a tgrip to several libraries and lots of digging and grunt work to find it. I believe it is locally notable, but doing this within the confines of a dispute with someone who starts off with an attack will be problematical at best. I'm going on holiday, and can't be on a short fuse here. And I don't want to get in a war over crap. All things being equal, I like to preserve and build articles and the encyclopedia. Others enjoy taking a sledge hammer to them. It's all in the attitude, and the name says it all doesn't it? 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've had this problem before. I don't remember if I had it with this guy.  I had an issue with User:Wetman several years ago, but that was resolved by backing off and letting others handle it a year or two later.  If you save the existing article and resubmit it when you have more content for it, I suspect User:TenPoundHammer will have fewer issues with it.  No guarantees.  I remember him from something, but I don't remember what.  IIRC, he's an active bridge article editor, but I could be mis-remembering. - Denimadept (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not a bridge editor at all, but I came across the article when searching for "tridge" since I live not too far from the Midland one. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm just wondering why this has gotten all contentious. - Denimadept (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I can live with that. I concede that the on line sources are meager, excepting some blogs that are objectionable as not WP:rs.  As to the Tridge in Midland, I had a lot more material that I had researched and was writing and going to put i, when one of our esteemed editors gratuitously fucked with it.  And I just said "fuck it" and quit editing the article.  It was casting pearls before swine.
 * So this problem antedates TenPound[s contribution, and touched on a sensitive nerve. I can save the article and revisit assuming it is deleted.  I haven't got time to trudge around looking at local newspapers in the next week or two.  I was not trying to be contentious, but I do not like being steamrolled, and the ironic use of "buddy" is not lost on me.  Why we are pissing in each other's soup is something that is unclear to me.
 * I do note that a couple of evidently WP:RS were added this article today, so its deletion is hardly a foregone conclusion.
 * In any event, we can try to get along, and revisit the question if and when the article is properly developed. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I also editing the Cuyahoga River Article. I added content. Why did u remove my facts? Bye. 25 May 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.121.48 (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Because, as I said in the edit summary, your facts were already in the article in a place more appropriate than the one you used. - Denimadept (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Patrick O'Brien
Many thanks for reviewing my first article - Daniel Patrick O'Brien, CRSP (Canadian Registered Safety Professional in this context)Dmuggeridge (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I have edited my article to respond to some of the comments and am willing to edit further. Perhaps you could suggest a course of action in response to calls for deletion of my article.Dmuggeridge (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I vetted it, to simply say it was not bogus. Some articles are totally frivolous.  Yours needs to show how this guy is notable in an encyclopedic sense.  Apparently, some people don't feel you've done that yet. - Denimadept (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

List of Nikon F-mount lenses with integrated autofocus motor
Please discuss those FUNDAMENTAL changes first. Please use a sandbox: Partial changes are bad. 77.186.7.220 (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am doing so. I'm also doing in the article because I do not wish to do this by myself. - Denimadept (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Its not bad, but info in the tableS has to be discussed, and partial edits arent good. 77.186.7.220 (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've done it this way in the past. You start from a beginning, and build on it.  The edits aren't partial, they're complete given the data already in the article.  However, I can see what you mean.  Do all the lenses currently in the article all at once, by myself, or at least in a sandbox edited by myself and others.  I can do that.  Moment... - Denimadept (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Try me at User:Denimadept/List of lenses. - Denimadept (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Preparing... 77.186.7.220 (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Commented. 77.186.7.220 (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (List of specialist photographic suppliers) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating List of specialist photographic suppliers, Denimadept!

Wikipedia editor Lixxx235 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Was on the fence on this one. Looks kinda like advertising, but ok, fine."

To reply, leave a comment on Lixxx235's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Proposed deletion of List of specialist photographic suppliers


The article List of specialist photographic suppliers has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Wikipedia is not a directory.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of List of specialist photographic suppliers for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of specialist photographic suppliers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of specialist photographic suppliers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Denimadept you appreciated me for my work for grooming for which I uses game's age rating.Well, it's astonishing work, If you want to take advice for age rating or kids grooming.Then please contact me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muaz mahmood (talk • contribs) 10:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"he's not there because some of us do not want the university branded by his presence. Shunned."
"he's not there because some of us do not want the university branded by his presence. Shunned."

The Wikipedia community, not your university, has the ultimate say on the page. No matter how much you don't like him, he is notable according to all measures. Infamous/bad/evil people who are notable need to be included.

I will be happy to ask for a third opinion or a request for comment, but I will tell you right now that I believe that the community will unanimously ask for him to be included. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See Village_pump_(miscellaneous) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not the only one removing that data. - Denimadept (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That does not matter if the community deems the rationale as inappropriate. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't agree. - Denimadept (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve Republic Metals page
Hello Denimadept. I appreciate your feedback on our page. Unfortunately the page was nominated and then deleted shortly after by another user. I was wondering if you would mind providing me with some guidance on improving the page as it has been deleted before. The first time I tried to correct the page by including citations from outside, unbiased third parties showing the notability of the company. Is it the citations that is the issue, or would you recommend more text about the company explaining their notability? I look forward to your feedback!(talk} — Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It's usually about notability. See WP:NOTE for more.  Otherwise, good citations and good formatting (see WP:MOS) are helpful.  WP:DEV is probably the most comprehensive, but I can't claim to have read it recently.  - Denimadept (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hulme Arch Bridge
Re, I should point out that I originally added the reference to Further Reading back in 2008. 7 years later, I found that I can't back it up with a good link to the information, hence why I removed it (and in hindsight, I shouldn't have added it in the first place without providing a link). If you can link to the content, then please do so! I'll remove it again for now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood. My apologies. - Denimadept (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge infobox image
I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by "shrink the image". Do you mean crop the image to cut out stuff on the periphery, or make the image smaller in size (reduce the file size or number of pixels)? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I figured it out.  With this edit you told User talk:50.153.150.242 "This image takes too long to load. You uploaded a full size image. Please downsize it to make it load faster."  That user then followed your advice and tried to scale down the image.  This is absolutely contrary to policy, which states "Make sure you are uploading the highest resolution image available. If the image was taken from a website, it might be worthwhile to check that source. There are almost no cases where reducing the size of a free use image is preferable", per WP:MTC.  This is a widely enforced policy on both Wikipedia and the Commons; to upload and preserve the highest resolution images.  I'll let the other use know. Cheers.  Magnolia677 (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * He just tried to specify the size on the infobox. He didn't change the size of the source image.  What I do sometimes is load two images, one smaller than the other.  Not often, but at times. - Denimadept (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Where in Wiki policy does it tell you to upload a low-quality second image? Also, you confused two IP editors.  The original IP editor who added the high-quality image only made one edit; a second IP editor scaled it down (incorrectly).  Then you threatened the first IP editor by stating "If this is not fixed, I'll revert the Bay Bridge page", even when that editor didn't do anything wrong.  No wonder IP editors don't stick around.  Magnolia677 (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It wasn't intended as a threat, but I see what you mean. Policy?  Hm. - Denimadept (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Da-delete1
Template:Da-delete1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Erroneous accusation of joke edit
Hi Denimadept: Please check out my response to your claim of a joke edit on my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.61.131.4#February_2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.131.4 (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of U.S. Route 3 Bridge over the Connecticut River


A tag has been placed on U.S. Route 3 Bridge over the Connecticut River requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. JJBers (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy deletion is for new articles. This article has been in place for 7 plus years.  Try again. Then again, I thought you already decided to "spare" this article.  I don't appreciate the arrogance. - Denimadept (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)