User talk:Dodo64

Hello. I was the one who nominated the UMIST category for deletion. The nomination for deletion was linked to on the category page since the 19th June. A week is the normal time that nominations for deletion run, although I was surprised that the result came out as delete rather than a relisting, considering there were no other opinions than mine voiced.

As it stands, there are very few pages about UMIST-related places (or misc. other things) on Wikipedia that do not also fall under the new University of Manchester (or now under its history). Category:People associated with the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology still exists for alumni and staff of UMIST, and is a sub-sub-category of Category:University of Manchester. I can't think of any other use for Category:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology than those two uses; can you? Note that the exact same applies to Category:Victoria University of Manchester, which I nominated for deletion at the same time.

Please note that if a non-redundant use for the category can be found, then I have no problems with its reinstatement. Otherwise, I feel that it should be/stay deleted. Mike Peel 20:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike. Thanks very much for your swift and courteous response to my posting. I was discombobulated partly because I thought the "People associated with..." sub-category had been deleted - I couldn't find it despite some clicking around. Thanks for pointing out that it does still exist, (as a sub-sub-category) and that my efforts of a couple of weeks ago therefore haven't been obliterated!

I understand your argument regarding redundancy etc. Actually I do have two suggested non-redundant uses for the deleted category - one minor and one more serious. The first is that the category acted as a link between the main UMIST article and the "People Associated.." sub-sub-category. If you've been reading an article, the usual place to look for related articles is in the categories section at the bottom, and having the UMIST category appear there led readers neatly not only to the small number of 'UMIST places' article but also to the alumni and staff sub-categories. However, I assume that this task could also be fulfilled by putting some sort of "See also..."-type link at the foot of the UMIST article to take readers straight to the "People associated..." category page?

My second suggested non-redundant use is as follows: I've been hoping to write a series of shortish articles about the major buildings on the UMIST campus. (The only one to have an article at present is Sackville St/Main Building.) This thought was triggered by the discovery that various architects have been heatedly discussing the merits of the various ex-UMIST buildings on the Skyscrapercity.com discussion forum. Take a butcher's: Note particularly the comment: "Demolishing the Maths tower on Oxford Road was a serious act of vandalism - but the former UMIST site is a far more important architectural environment - an entire 60s urban campus in a consistent language of high quality concrete. The entire complex should be retained and re-used." If I create articles on the Renold Building, MSS, Barnes Wallis and the rest, then certainly they would individually belong in the Uni of Manchester cat (at least until the university sells them, as it plans to do this year with MSS and others)- but the whole point of writing them would be to organise them in a way which made sense of them as a group - and that could only be the UMIST cat. For this reason alone, I think it would be worth reinstating the UMIST category. Would that meet with your approval? Dodo64 (aka Rick Lewis) 26 June, wee small hours.


 * To your first point: I personally tend to look for links within the article, rather than using the category system, so I would end up finding People associated with the University of Manchester but probably not looking in the categories. As such, I'd recommend creating a People associated with UMIST article and putting it into the navigational box. As you say, a see also link would also do the job.


 * To your second: I really don't want to get into the future of the UMIST campus - I used to live in Wright Robinson, and I've walked through the UMIST hundreds of times, and quite like it apart from the decay due to lack of maintenance that it's showing, so discussing demolishing it is depressing. With the article set: I like the idea, however nowadays, it would probably be more politically correct to create a Category:Buildings in the University of Manchester North Campus and use that instead of a UMIST category, especially if the buildings are still in use. Mike Peel 09:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Mike - I'm glad we agree about the desirability of a category for ex-UMIST buildings and things. Seems like we only really disagree over the exact name of that category. In answer to your point, it might be more 'politically correct' to call it the North Campus if we were writing in a Univ of Manchester publication, but Wikipedia being an independent encyclopedia, this consideration doesn't apply. In any case, as I understand it the term 'North Campus' has no official standing even within the Univ of Manchester. Unofficially it is used, of course, but then unofficially the term 'UMIST Campus' is also still used, so that doesn't settle anything. Also, as has been said elsewhere, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a mere directory of current university institutions, and this means that articles and categories should take into account the whole history of the subject-matter, not just current status. As the MSS building (for instance) was built for UMIST and for 40 years was part of UMIST on a campus unambiguously called the "UMIST Campus", this should outweigh in WIkipedia terms the fact that it is currently (and apparently rather briefly, judging by this month's announcement) a part of the University of Manchester. For all these reasons I think the category should be called Category:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, ie that the category just deleted should be revived.

Would you mind awfully if I start a Deletion Review? This isn't because I doubt the ability of the two of us to hammer the problems out; it is just that previous proposals regarding the UMIST and University of Manchester articles and categories have attracted lots of well-informed input from all points of view on the University of Manchester and UMIST talk pages. If the deletion is reversed and the category deletion proposal is relisted with a notice on the UMIST article page (that being the main page within the category as per Wikipedia guidelines), then all those folk would have a chance to pitch in with their views, which only seems fair. Dodo64 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Go for it. Mike Peel 19:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike. I've done it. I see that the only ground for a Deletion Review is if there was an error in the process of the earlier deletion decision. Therefore I've pointed out that there was no notice of the proposed deletion on the main article in the category (ie the UMIST article) but Wikipedia guidelines give that as a 'suggested' rather than a 'mandatory' so I don't know if this will be accepted. In any case, please don't take it as a criticism! I hope the relisting is allowed as I'd really like to see this discussed further. Dodo64 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the deletion review Dodo64 15:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I've relisted the category for deletion; please see Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 6. I have also left comments on the talk pages of the University of Manchester, Victoria University of Manchester, and University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology articles. Hopefully we'll get more people commenting this time, and will be able to come to a consensus on what to do with the category. Thanks. Mike Peel 18:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Mike! I appreciate it. Dodo64 23:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Page Deletion
Hello, I noticed you were somewhat upset when your article about a certain university building was deleted. After reading your edit summary, I thought you might find the construction template of use:

underconstruction

To place that on a page, simply type at the top of a page and save it. The message will appear and you can remove that line from the top of the page when you've finished editing. (The "user talk page" part of that template changes to match the type of page you're editing.) Bellito, master of all things Mac-related 22:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was a fast response! Thanks for the info about the construction template. In future, I'll start all new pages by posting that template straight away. Dodo64 22:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. :-) That helps keep pages that have good potential from being deleted so quickly, as long as they aren't spam or vandalism. A lot of Wikipedians (including you) create their articles in multiple saves. I've seen many an article be CSD'd because there's no construction tag, so that ought to help you.


 * When i start an article about, for example a famous mathematicians, I start it on as subpage of my user page like User:Dodo64/Joe_Bloggs, then when it is a reasonable stub that makes a case for WP:BIO notability I move it to the encylopedia. Otherwise you just get started and it gets deleted. The template is a good way too.Billlion 21:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dodo64
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Dodo64, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Tad Lincoln (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, easy tiger! I'm simply trying to create a userpage for myself, having previously neglected to do so. Why is that inappropriate? I don't get it. Dodo64 (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I get it. I was trying to edit my user page and instead created a Wikipedia article about myself by mistake! My bad. Please feel free to delete it, if I haven't already succeeded in doing so. Dodo64 (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space
Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Dodo64/Timothy Madigan has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Timothy Madigan, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.)


 * To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the [ reviewer's talk page]. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Skeowsha (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Smcg8374 (talk) 07:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Timothy Madigan, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!  DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

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

Orphaned non-free image File:PhilosophyNow85 cover small.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:PhilosophyNow85 cover small.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Cover of Philosophy Now Issue 121 (Aug-Sept 2017).jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cover of Philosophy Now Issue 107 (April-May 2015).jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Cover of Philosophy Now Issue 107 (April-May 2015).jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)