User talk:Dpmuk/Archive 2

Professional Inline Hockey Association
I see that you have a fascination with keeping very small articles alive. Most of the team pages within the PIHA do not qualify as encyclopedic because they contain very little information. I think if you were to work with me and others, we could expand these pages to make them better.Keystoneridin (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Epitome of Pantalgia
Can you tell my why it wasn't eligible for speedy A7? I'm confused. FireCrystal (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, seems like I didn't get the whole gist of the criteria and what you can or not do, such as adding back the speedy tag after someone other than the author had removed it. You say that it includes articles about albums and it was indeed an album (or demo I could say but close enough). I knew A9 wasn't acceptable so I went with A7 as the other meaningful option. I wasn't thinking at the time that I could just redirect it because I was just thinking that it was merely non-notable. Also, the artist's page is undergoing AFD and may need to be deleted anyway through A9 if it doesn't survive it. I don't think I will have any more problems in the future. Thank you. FireCrystal (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Schools
Do you have a link to the AfD which says schools are notable?  C T J F 8 3 Talk 22:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 22:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

¿Are you an Administrator?
I would like to know if you are an administrator.

You removed a Speedy deletet tag I placed in the article LGBT rights in the Dominican Republic which said  that Homosexuality is legal by law. That article is from an organization which claims that homosexuality is legal by law the Dominican Republic, and that is not so. There is no law in our Code or Constitution concerning homosexuality acceptances. I just edited the article stating so, but that is not enough because the D. R. stays within the rest of the countries which recognizes that right. Because I don´t want to be blocked again, I really don´t know for sure if I can revert and put back the tag so to avoid that I will alert others administrators about what you did. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable crashes?
Hi - you deleted the speedy delete tag on an old Italian crash - the article was just a few sentences and there was no notability in it. Do you happen to know what makes a plane crash notable, or are they all de facto? Alice (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC
Just fyi, I encountered the same thing, and manually added an RfC, but then the next day it had been automatically added as well. Apparently the bot isn't doing it within one hour. So you just might want to keep your eye on it that it doesn't show up twice. Dlabtot (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Short story notability
I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books) that you may wish to comment on. NJGW (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Darren_Stanley
Thanks for the input on the Darren Stanley page. I reviewed the Notability_(academics) criteria and it seems that this individual does not merit an entry for academic notability. I've changed the tag to proposed delete so we can can get some input one way or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndowning (talk • contribs) 00:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
My second "delete" to 1881 Boundary Treaty was a mistake. Sorry. --Keysanger (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Blå Jungfrun National Park
Thanks for removing the CSD tag. I didn't notice it was about the island as well. Sorry.  The Le ft ori um  21:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Burridge
Thanks for your message. On reflection, I agree with you that the speedy deletion was not justified. I deleted the article because I believed that the claim to be the youngest ever Parliamentary candidate in the UK was not credible - "almost certainly incorrect", in my phrase. I mentioned the lack of independent references, since I felt that would have lent some credibility to the claim, even though I believed it to be incorrect. However, my belief that the claim was not credible was because I misremembered and believed that the minimum age for a candidate had been lowered to 18 prior to the last general election. As it is, Burridge may well be the youngest candidate for the UK Parliament in the modern era, and while the claim made in the article wasn't quite clear, it could be interpreted that way (there was a candidate for the Northern Ireland Assembly who may have been younger, and the requirement for candidates to be 21 hasn't always been in place - Christopher Monck, 2nd Duke of Albemarle was elected at the age of 13 and left when he was 16!). You say in your message that you are happy to let the speedy deletion stand, but if you would like me to restore it and put it through AfD instead, I will be happy to so. Warofdreams talk 18:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Please assume good faith, be civil and remember that you don't own articles pages
Dpmuk, I bear responsibility for every word I write. I wish other participants in these discussions could do that, too. Also, I think these discussions can be of some use only if they are focused on encyclopedic subjects, and less emotional. Witizen (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

Witizen
Hi! I (sort of) answered your message to Witizen here. Just thought I'd let you know :) Jafeluv (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the explanation. I understand your concerns. Sorry for stepping on your toes there. Jafeluv (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you explain what you mean by "volatile nature of the edits to this article" (Wirtland (micronation))? Thanks! Rich church mouse (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Rich Church Mouse

Genome Wager
Thanks for fixing my mistake on the CSD. After reviewing it, I realized that I had tagged it wrongly and it should have perhaps instead gone to AFD. I've had a brief conversation with the creator, and have left it as is with tags for improvement. My apologies for screwing that one up! Frmatt (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Seventh Brother
Its now pretty much been confirmed that OckhamTheFox was acting on the behest of one Bambifan101's socks per a request at the Russian Wikipedian. Can this now be deleted as a creation by a bannded user by proxy? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright tag
Thank you for your message. My apologies regarding the mistaken placement of that tag.

BWH76 (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
✅ for you. Please rememeber to read WP:ROLLBACK and ask me if you need any help. Pedro : Chat  22:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No probs - glad to be of service. Pedro : Chat  22:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Swansea Cork Ferries
Seems that this redirected / deleted page has been reinstated.... again.... (third time!!) It contains nothing notable, no supporting references, and (as far as I can see) has no point - as all of the verifiable info (and some more) is already on the page Swansea Cork Ferry Nobullman (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the latest edit to Swansea Cork Ferries. Brand new editor... no previous record on Wiki... could be 'innocent newness' or 'vandalism/sock-puppetry' Will continue watching. Nobullman (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Same editor reverted link again last night - but it was soon reinstated. Still thinking 'good faith'? Nobullman (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Something very strange has happened to the article 'Swansea Cork Ferry'. It seems to have been redirect wholesale to a new page 'Fastnet Line' - which is a very poor piece of Wiki, is pretty well uninformed - and serves no purpose that couldn't be achieved by the original link to www.fastnetline.com. Unfortunately I'm not clued up enough to find my way back up the edit path and undo what's been done - you were very helpful in the past with unraveling edits to this page - please can you help me again ? In this case the edit doen't seem to be malicious - just misguided. It'd be great to get back to the original, well-developed and referenced article at Swansea Cork Ferry. Thanks Nobullman (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick note
Blocking is different from banning. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 16:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion tags on Christel articles
Thanks for the heads up, I had missed the schools exemption form the criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

John E.S. Lawrence
To conform with WP COI guidelines, and to correct misimpressions, let me confirm that my over 100 professional publications, op-eds etc. - for most of which I have been credited as sole or senior author - have been developed over forty years, and are readily available on request. Only a selection (plus some independent references) have been included in earlier communications with WP editors. Furthermore, the reference cited below incorrectly as blank does in fact refer directly to a German citation of my work, see http://de.scientificcommons.org/john_e_s_lawrence Jeslw (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

When you removed the speedy delete template from John E.S. Lawrence, you gave the following rationale for doing so in the edit summary: "'He's a full professor with over 100 publucations (according to links) - to me that is enough indication of possible notability to avoid speedy especially when taken with talk page comments.'"


 * The article never says that he is full professor. In fact, it explicitly and clearly states that he is an ADJUNCT professor. This makes me think you didn't even read the article before you removed the template.


 * The article itself makes no claims that any of his work has ever been published, and it certainly doesn't claim that he's been published anywhere near 100 times.


 * Even on the talk page, he does not claim that he's been published over 100 times. The talk page actually says that: "More than 100 webpages refer to the varied exploratory, professional work and other contributions of John E S Lawrence." If you go through the 15 or links posted, they include things such as:
 * email lists,
 * publications written by others that merely mention his name once,
 * publications written by others that don't even mention him once,
 * a blog written by one of his friends, where his friend mentions that John Lawrence sent him an email.
 * the results page of a search program if you type in "John E.S. Lawrence" (the results page, by the way, is blank)
 * a web page that says that during the summer of 1967 John Lawrence worked at an outdoor educational camp for children.


 * Virtually all academics write scholarly works to be published in academic journals. It's a basic part of their job description, and so just doing it does not in itself make them notable. Having the things written about an academic in publications would be evidence of notability, but simply being published is not.

It would only take a couple minutes for you to go back, read the article again, and then add the speedy delete template back to the article so that editors won't have to waste their time going through the articles for deletion process.

Thanks lots!Dgf32 (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Right the first issue is that what I left as an edit comment was obviously a short summary of my reasoning. In reply to your specific points.
 * I had read the page and notice that he was an adjunct professor. While searching for his name I came across this page that claims he's a adjunct full professor.
 * No the article doesn't make the claim about 100 publications but one of the links given clearly does.
 * My comment about the talk page mainly refers to him appearing to have a mountain complex named after him.
 * Taken together I think there is enough indication there as to why he may be notable to not be speedied. I never thought the article was likely to surivive WP:PROD (unless removed by the author) or WP:AfD however the notabality and verifiability standards to pass speedy are much lower than for other deletions due to the lack of discussion.  In this case I thought, and still do think, that this article deserved the longer time frame of prod or AfD to give people a chance to find sources if they exist - I don't think this is likely but I've seen it happen in the past on articles that I thought weren't going to survive. Dpmuk (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable. It seemed arbitrary at first glance, which triggered the response, but I'm glad it wasn't. Thanks for taking the time to respond! Dgf32 (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (As an aside, the web page with the CV stating that he's an "Adjunct (Full) Professor" is pure self-promotion at best and academic dishonesty at worst. The terms "full professor", "associate professor", and "assistant professor" refer only to tenured and tenure-track faculty. Since an adjunct professor is a non-tenure track, part-time, temporary, non-salaried position, the terms full, associate, and assistant professors don't apply.) Dgf32 (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Being British I'm not fully aware of all the ins and outs of how American universities name their positions so I may have made a mistake there. I was aware that the page was quite self-promotional but sources don't have to be reliable (indeed you don't really need them at all) to avoid speedy. Dpmuk (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked through your contribs Dpmuk, 90% of the work you do is good, I just wish you would consider bringing some of that other 10% to AfD instead of just drive-by-untagging some articles with really marginal notability. Gigs (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do wonder if I should do more of this but I often don't have the time to investigate the subject properly and I firmly believe that someone making an AfD nomination should have done a good faith search for sources first. I may try to more often leave messages for the edit who added the speedy. Dpmuk (talk) 11:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Gigs (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:User talk:Liljay23
Hi Dpmuk. You're absolutely right! This does seem very strange. I have found a more appropriate block notice and have made the appropriate changes. Thanks for letting me know. Best,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 05:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
That's fine. Airplaneman talk 20:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Irbisgreif (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Precious time and its management
I lazily didn't change the tag, my apologies. It's unencyclopaedic, how-to and either WP:OR or a copy from an unknown source. do you want me to restore?  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  16:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
In addition, please continue to comment on my actions and let me know if you feel I'm improving. (Or not). Irbisgreif (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin closure
Hi! Per this: There's no need to state "no admin closure" in a move discussion. As you see by following the link, Non-admin closure is just used for deletion discussions (which should be closed by admins except in special cases). Move discussions can be closed by any uninvolved user. Just wanted to let you know :) Jafeluv (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

 * Hello, sorry i fumbled at my deletion attempts in Kabilleti and others.Those pages are on thracian tribes that dont exist nor did they ever.I cant find them anywhere.There were others listed that were names of hairstyles(yes its true) and other irrelevant things .Megistias (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Side question
This is kind of a side question that I've been wondering about re: the RfC option #2. What if no good adjective exists for the country in question? Do we default back to the country name for those countries? An example is Trinidad and Tobago. "Trinidadian and Tobagonian" is possible, I suppose, but the approach for most categories has been to just use "Trinidad and Tobago FOO". So under #2 would it be "American – Trinidad and Tobago relations"? Or something else? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good question and I was thinking of making 2 say where possible at the end. Have updated the RfC to suggest that will we probably need further discussion about this issue if 2 is chosen - let's get consensus on the larger issue first and cross this bridge if we have to (i.e. 2 is chosen). Dpmuk (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Protection templates on unprotected pages
I was just doing my regular cleanup of Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. On that page I clean up every day some 15 pages, including a few templates and userpages. See also Protection_policy. Debresser (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Consumer Watchdog (USA)
Hello! Please see my reply in the discussion. (You appear to have misunderstood the proposal.) Thanks! —David Levy 04:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Warning
DO NOT  revert the links until the issue is resolved. Sarah777 (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom
OK. Time up. Will one of you please refer this case to Arbcom? Sarah777 (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Dpmuk won't mind me speaking on his behalf when I say do it yourself if its that important to you! Jeni  ( talk ) 11:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope I don't mind, although I probably wouldn't put it quite that way. At the moment I also do not feel that this has reached the ArbCom stage (although I will admit to not knowing the full details of previous cases) so I definitely won't be taking it to ArbCom, although I am considerng a WP:RFC/U. Dpmuk (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support that if you chose to go down that route, something needs to be done at least! Jeni  ( talk ) 11:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Sarah777 2

 * In accordance with WP:Bold policy, I've taken it upon myself to make corrections to obvious typo errors. I was extremely cautious - I only followed spell-check "red" highlighting prompts. However, their were some typos I did not correct because I did not know which word you meant (in this quasi-legal document). Don't you have a "spell-check" piece of software available? Do you not see on your screen a "red" dotted underline when a word is deemed mis-spelled?


 * I'm currently interested in Wikilawyering. So any suggestions on how I can assist in minimizing Disruptions - I like to hear of them from you. I, myself, have had training in law. But in Wikipedia I know the concern is not to Punish - but to Rectify behavior to conform to the Majority. It's Truth by Majority Vote - it could be said. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems we were posting on each other's pages at the same time! I'd suggest you read WP:LAWYER otherwise I don't feel experienced enough around here to other you general advice on this matter as it's not an area I've done much work in.  If you have any specific questions feel free to ask and I'll do my best to answer them.  WP:EA may also be helpful in this regard. Dpmuk (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's surprising. The document you drafted makes you look like a "professional lawyer." Or are you only a born "natural lawyer"? At the moment your the Chief Prosecutor.
 * Anyway, I appreciate the two (2) WP articles you've directed me to - and I'll study them. And I may take you up on the kind offer of your willingness to answer my possible questions. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that you view as seeming misunderstanding (or perhaps I've misunderstood either this comment or your summary). The tactic of "turning the tables on the enemy" (IOW, taking a result you don't like, and applying it in a way that will be unpopular with those that arrived at it), is a textbook example of illustrating disagreement with a principle, rather than being content to simply state it. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

franca batich page does not infringe copyright
Hi Dpmuk. here is a copy of the second message sent to wikipedia: how long does it take to verify this issue and cancel the notice on the page?

(quote) Subject: FRANCA BATICH: THIS IS NOT A COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT  	07 ottobre 2009 10.31 A: permissions-en@wikimedia.org

as per your notice: >> If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en-at-wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on.

we authorize the use of our texts for Franca Batich's wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franca_Batich from http://www.giudecca795.com/en/artists/Franca-Batich. THIS IS NOT A COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

regards,

Irene Spagna -- Giudecca795 Art Gallery Fondamenta S.Biagio 795 - 30133 Venezia tel (+39) 3408798327 - www.giudecca795.com

(end quote)

all the best --Globe.explorer (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Good close
Thank you for a good closing summary of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy. And thank you for working things out the best way. Debresser (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, things did seem to work out well. It's always nice when a discussion ends with everyone in agreement, especially on something like policy. -Royalguard11 (T) 01:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

My recent post to User talk:Collectonian
I have User talk:Collectonian on my watch list—going back to an issue involving another user and Collectonian—so I saw your comment. I happened to be at the computer when you posted, and that's why I saw the message so quickly. I actually started to start the message with "Sorry to butt in." :)

As for the question of whether adding copyright-infringing material is vandalism, my answer is somewhere between "not necessarily" and "yes, but...". You're right that we should assume good faith from editors, especially new ones. I edit enough articles about TV shows that I see lots of episode summaries taken straight from TV Guide, etc.—which usually don't last long before they get removed. The important thing in that case is to explain that Wikipedia takes copyrights seriously, contributions must be original text or under CC-BY-SA 3.0, and "He said I could put it on Wikipedia" isn't necessarily enough permission to use the text. If I revert an editor a second time, there's usually a plea in my warning to please explain on a talk page why the material should be included in Wikipedia. Repeated re-adds—either of the same text or across multiple articles—shows a pattern, and if they've been warned before, they're now showing they either don't understand the rules or don't want to follow them, and either case is disruptive. Now we're in the realm of vandalism.

Back to the situation with Collectonian, you're both right. Copyvio is not vandalism, but reverting it is not edit warring/a violation of the three-revert rule. However, the reverts should be explained with a combination of edit summaries, warnings/user talk messages to the infringing editor, and article talk discussion if the situation warrants it. Unexplained reverts of copyvio, even if it isn't edit warring by definition, looks an awful lot like it. —C.Fred (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleting a Speedy Delete tag
You reversed my Speedy Delete tag on R.W. Cameron because, in your opinion, it "Seems like a reasonable redirect to me - take to WP:RfD if desired." I wasn't aware that an override authority for this existed. Contest it with removal, perhaps. So that I understand, please give me a link the Wikipedia authority you acted upon. Too, I actually think you were wrong but please englighten me as my understanding is that Wikipedia does not needlessly spend money on redirects with conjoined initials. Thanx. Handicapper (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanx. - Something doesn't make sense. I read the policy and it seems contradictory inasmuch as Wikipedia was founded on strict equality of contributors -- even Jimmy Wales added that being an "Administrator is no big deal." I do not wish to be designated as a second-class editor. Without equality, most would in fact leave Wikipedia. I don't believe that the editors who put that into the Deletion Policy meant that your opinion, and removal of an SD tag is only an opinion, has more value than my opinion when I put the tag there (or any other parties). Handicapper (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanx, however you are putting out your own interpretation on what the policy means. My inserting the SD tag most certainly was not "controversial" (and, you are wrong because there already exists a proper redirect relative to the company name). But, the fact remains that the way the Policy was written means your opinion has more value than mine because, according to you, I am the one who must be "bringing the discussion to WP:RfD [so that] all opinions can be heard and a consensus decision reached." That kind of Wikipedia protocol is simply absurb at a minimum and insulting on any level. Such a policy encourages those many here who feast on "power" as a result of their own failings and frustrations they come here with. It seems to me that the 3-revert rule and other similar such "policy" things, places the onus on the party who disagrees to follow a course of designated resolution. Worse, of course, is that regardless of who gets there, "all opinions" are never heard to obtain a "concenus." In 99% of all RFD matters, it is a mere handful of people who come to the "consensus" in a system that in fact allows, and through lack of control, even encourages, cabals to operate through external communications and with impunity impose their views on others, incuding the writing of policy itself. Wikipedia's failure is that it has an arbitration committee to resolve mostly personality agendas but has no policy board for reference on content in a system without article finality, only perpetual editing. And, I run across the content agenda all the time, the latest was a day or so ago at General Motors. It's so widespread, and the consequences so frustrasting, I've given up trying to edit them. Sorry, now I'm just venting. In any case, I will see if this "policy" on speedy delete can get changed. Thanx again. Handicapper (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Now, you are really confused but in fact have confirmed my complaint that your opinion, through a Wiki policy, has more validity than mine because you said: "I really don't get why you feel it's unfair that you have to take it to WP:RfD, it would be odd for me to take it their [there] given that I'm perfectly happy with it," --- The reality is, I am an editor who placed the tag and was "perfectly happy" to do so. But, you disagreed and deleted it but that's somehow proper conduct because you are "perfectly happy with it", too. Hence, your being happy is more important than me being happy as the burden to get clarification is on me.  Because someone disagrees with an original editor, your edit takes precedence over theirs and they are obliged to spend their time taking you to WP:RfD is preposterous. Elemental to every judicial procedure in the world is that the person who wishes to overrule an existing state of being (in this case, my edit, created as fact by me) is the complainant. In simple procedural terms, I don't have to take you to court to prove the title deed existing and recorded by me for my house is valid. If you believe the title deed (state of being) is incorrect, then the onus is on you to file an action and demonstrate to the court that it really is yours.  Handicapper (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: please take your ramblings of my talk page, the discussion place is Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization) - unless when you think you need to discuss me rather than the content of the guideline in which case there is no discussion area, per WP:NPA (discuss about content, not editors). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the above warning was wrong for two main reasons a) I'd only undone twice and the second of those was purely because the editor involved can't possibly have read my reasoning yet as I hadn't had time to post it to his talk page and b) it was a case of templating the regulars. Additionally there is some support here for my point of view that I was only ensuring the recently agreed upon consensus was implemented.  In light of this I've moved the ugly image that goes with the warning but left the text.  I am aware that it is my right to remove the warning in it's entirety but feel it best left in the name of openness and putting other comments in context. Dpmuk (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your mindless reverts at Naming conventions (capitalization) - there's no consensus for the wording you're proposing (yet), and it is not in line with other well-established guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ulcerative colitis
The article needs a solid rewrite. The data for increased prevalence of ulcerative colitis in northern areas is well described in Europe (as cited in the article). For the USA the same phenomenon is described and the best source is a 1991 paper from Gastroenterology (PMID 1983816). -- Samir 07:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Secret Maryo Chronicles (3 nomination)
Since you participated in the DRV for Secret Maryo Chronicles, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Secret Maryo Chronicles (3 nomination). Tim Song (talk) 07:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Tx
Thanks much for your help at Lloyd R. Woodson. I've had a wikistalker of mine attack the article repeatedly, so its appreciated greatly that an uninvolved editor removed the tag.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for trying to diffuse the situation with Greg. Also, since an AfD is now underway, you are right about the move discussion so will leave it for now. Oh, and good catch. Cheers, wjemather bigissue 22:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
 D u s t i SPEAK!! 23:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
x2 :)  D u s t i SPEAK!! 23:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

CSD#A3
In this edit summary you wrote, "A3 contains nothing that suggests that articles that contain only images are eligable - especially when that image is informative." Just so you're aware for future instances, it in fact does, and quite explicitly. CSD states: "Any article (other than disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects) consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, chat-like comments, template tags and/or images." All images convey information, so that's not a valid exception. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move of International Hockey League
I propose that the disambiguation article International Hockey League be moved to International Hockey League (disambiguation). This move is to make way for the move of International Hockey League (2007–) (which is a currently operating league that was founded in 1997) to International Hockey League. A Dablink would be placed at the top of the article linking to the disambiguation article. The currently operating IHL is clearly the most relevant article, and as such, should have a clear and concise title. Using "(2007 - )" to differentiate the title is inaccurate and confusing. Dolovis (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Carl Jackson
I don't see that the article, as written, made a claim of notability at all — just being a golf caddy doesn't, in and of itself, make a person notable enough for inclusion here, and the article, as written, didn't claim anything that would, in and of itself, make him more notable than other caddies.

It's certainly possible that he meets notability guidelines for reasons that weren't made clear in the original article — but then the answer is to write a new version of the article which makes his notability more apparent. And that doesn't necessarily require undeleting the old version — speedying one version of an article doesn't mean that the person can never have a second kick at the can; it just means that one particular version of the article wasn't cutting it.

I'd quite happily restore the old version to somebody's sandbox space if you or someone else intends to actually work on improving it, but given that deleting one version of an article doesn't mean that nobody can ever create a better version, I don't see a particularly compelling reason why we would need to keep the original version in active article space in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't delete it because it lacked sources; I deleted it because it lacked any credible claim of notability. I'm looking at the deleted text right now, and as written it doesn't claim that he's the longest-serving caddy in the history of the Masters. Maybe you picked that statement up from one of the other sources you looked at, but it certainly isn't in the article itself — as written, the article just says that he's been a caddy at the Masters for X number of years, which isn't really a claim of notability in and of itself.


 * If there are sources which say that he's the longest-serving caddy in the history of the circuit, then yeah, that would probably be a sufficient claim of notability to make the article keepable — if the claim were actually present in the article somewhere.


 * And as I already pointed out, I have no objection to restoring it as long as somebody intends to properly work on it. But simply disagreeing about whether an article makes a credible claim of notability or not doesn't mean that I'm acting "out of process", especially when you're suggesting a claim of notability that isn't actually present in the article; it just means that we disagree about something. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that's a keepable article! (*grin*) Bearcat (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries, I've done similar things myself before, too. Bearcat (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Best &mdash; e. ripley\talk 00:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)