User talk:Dpmuk/Archive 3

Talkback
Dwayne  was here! ♫ 20:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

My opinion
Regarding this, I think you should start an AN or ANI discussion about the situation. If you do, feel free to throw me the link to it. Silver seren C 03:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Manny Fontenla-Novoa speedy decline
Thanks, I'm still trying to get my feet on the ground re new page patrolling. I'd welcome your opinion: Should it be AfD'ed? Best regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 21:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The thing to remember about the A7 speedy delete criteria is that an article only has to have some indication of why the person could be notable to avoid speedy. Any such assertion does not need to be sourced.  What amounts to enough indication to avoid speedy varies between people but universally it's significantly lower than the standards in WP:N and it's associated pages.
 * Personally I'd advise against taking to WP:AfD as I think it's likely to survive. Both this article and this one are largely about him (rather than the company) and both are reliable sources so it seems likely our notability standards are met.
 * For the avoidance of any doubt - I'm not an admin but per our deletion policy any one, except the page creator, may remove a speedy tage with which they disagree. I'm going to try and find time to improve the article shortly. Dpmuk (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin either, we both have about the same edit count, and we have both come here from the same place: I've been patrolling hangon's doing just what you're doing, removing speedy tags that I though inappropriate. I thought today I'd try out the Dark Side of the Force, but I seem to be struggling so far. Maybe I should have been removing more speedy tags than I was. Thanks for your comments. —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 21:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I didn't really look into your history. Yep, I patrol speedy delete tags because of this this article (still have to look up my watchlist to remember how to spell it :-) ).  Back then I was starting to patrol new pages and was looking at what other articles were tagged so as to get an idea what should be tagged.  I thought that article was worth saving despite it's terrible state but had to fight tooth and nail to get it kept.  It ended up making DYK.  Since then I've been patrolling speedy tags because it made me realised quite how often mistakes happen. Dpmuk (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

re: ANI notice
OK I have replacing with until the investigation is completed, thank you 95Kenrick (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Re- The Playing Fields (band)
I have added the reasons to not be tagged for speedy deletion as follows in my reply to "SnoopGod":

On what basic is this band notable? Snoop God (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC) "Significant coverage"- the sources address the subject in detail. No external research is neccessary.

"Reliable"- sources published works.

"Sources"- quotes secondary sources, band has over 100 press articles.

"Independent of subject"- I am not affiliated with band.

"Presumed"- there is no presumption neccessary, all references are inline citated.

"Neutral sources"- many, quoted.

is that enough? Please let me know if you need more.

I am on here regularly. Whilst this band may not be Madonna,

General notability guideline Shortcuts: WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article...

and it doesn't stand alone, it is not an orphan.

Regards, Fiedorczuk (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiedorczuk (talk • contribs) 13:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Moves
What the heck are you talking about? I pasted it under current requests like everybody else. And are you even allowed to move other people's requests I thought that movers do that? EunSoo (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But in Donghae's case it doesn't make sense because as u said Donghae is called Donghae and not Donghae City, right. So then why is Donghae City not just Donghae? And is there a minimal amount of links for disambiguation pages? Cause 3 seems kind of useless. Okay I read it I saw that 3 is the minimal to create a disambig.

WP:DABNAME says a if there is a primary topic then there should be a (disambiguation) tag added so in this inorder for there to be a PT Donghae City hould be moved to Donghae then Donghae can be moved to Donghae (diambiguation) EunSoo (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Because the sea and the singer are also known by that name, so which one should go there? The minimum number of links for a disambiguation page is 2. I don't see how this is "stupid" if there's two things with the same name we need to point people at the correct article even if there is only two articles to choose from. Dpmuk (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC


 * Well I am not sure but I was told that the primary topic was decided by the article most viewed ShelfSkewed . So I would think the most viewed was Donghae (singer). That's why RMed it. According to Wikipedia's title it's called Sea of Japan (I don't even see Donghae in the intro), so I don't what to do?? *scratches head* EunSoo (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay I did the whole Google search engine thing and Donghae the singer came up first so I guess he would be the primary topic. EunSoo (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Do It Again (Documentary Film)
I was hoping you could explain why the page "Do It Again (Documentary Film)" was moved for deletion. All of the information is sourced and accurate. Thanks for your feedback. AAlmanacAAlmanac (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AAlmanac (talk • contribs) 19:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that... I'm new and perhaps don't know how to go about the process of moving my draft into a publishable/public space. Again, sorry for any confusion. Will my page now be live or has it been deleted? AAlmanac (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

EunSoo 'Socking' again?
Hi there, Dpmuk. I have a feeling may be back as. My reasoning is that almost their first edit (here) was a re-direct regarding a Korean singer, which was a redirect that EunSoo also made, but was reverted. I reverted too, and Dreaded22 re-reverted without comment. I dropped them a talkpage message asking what was up, no response. Opinion? Thanks. --220.101 (talk) \Contribs 12:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dpmuk. I thought you'd be interested. I was just dropping a note to my favourite Admin for an opinion, when I noticed you'd already acted. Regards, --220.101 (talk) \Contribs 13:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer Right Granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Helpful  One  12:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

G11
Sorry, should have tagged G11. Shovon (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Too cool to care / New Boyz
You're absolutely right about the non-G8 deletion criteria, now that I look at it more carefully.

I was more concerned about the loop redirect, and you took care of that. Thanks for the look and help on that.

Regards, --Manway (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fences &amp;  Windows  13:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Your ongoing harassment
I leave the project. Too much harassment and stalking. I did like to do disambiguation work, fixing lots of wrong incoming links to ambiguous article titles etc. Hope the stalkers can have a nice party now. ADIOS! Schwyz (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I am removing the Website Link
The AS Kalev Chocolate Factory Link (Spacestoned (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC))

Academia School
Correct, restored  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like User:Schwyz is back (again)
User:TigreTiger looks a lot like Schwyz to me. What do you think? Do you think I should start a sockpuppet investigation? -- Ja Ga  talk 11:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and started one here. -- Ja Ga  talk 23:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you think about User:CSCarlosXXVIII? Looks like him, but you know how when you're looking for a duck, everything looks like a duck... -- Ja Ga  talk 02:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
I understand now. I know how PRODs work, but I don't know much about speedy deletions. I've added the tag. Thank you for explaining it to me!--hkr Laozi speak   17:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Duplicative article
Hi Dpmuk,

I created Firouz and its duplicative article - I didn't know how to create a disambiguation, hence the blunder. Anyhow, you can go ahead and delete the article if you want (no need to "hang on") :) Scythian1 (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

About the revertion of a SD tag
No biggies. Just to let you know that I'm fully aware of the CSD criteria, and in fact I first tagged under a different criteria. If you would have cared to look at my contributions you could have seen it for yourself. So next time before saying something to someone please look at his User page, his talk page, and his contributions. The article has now been moved to user space so there really isn't need to discuss further the criteria. Remember that criteria is not law and that wikilawyering is a bad practice. Also it is very uncivil to remove SD tags as I can see you do (infering from the announcement at the top of your talk page). I will revert any SD tag non-admin removal that is not fully discussed in the article's talk page, if there isn't a change in the article's content. The SD tag is used to get the author and admin attention about the article. Therefore, even though you can remove it, it is better to let the author address the SD tag rationale, or let and admin either delete the article or remove the SD tag. Good luck, and remember to always assume good faith. Thanks --Legion fi (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ore railway station
This article has recently been renamed to Ore Valley Railway Station. I have attempted to undo the renaming as this new name does not accord with the actual name. In view of your comments regarding the renaming of Fairfield railway station I wonder if you have the authority to reverse this renaming if you so wish.Bill Oversixty (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Should have said that there is a proposal to rename to Ore Valley.Bill Oversixty (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support.Bill Oversixty (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Kurdish diaspora and Kurdish population
Hi Dpmuk, I have proposed that we merge Kurdish diaspora to Kurdish population. If you look at the history of the Kurdish diaspora article [before I made major improvements to it] both the articles were identical. I never realised there was a Kurdish population article unitl today. Do you support the merge? If so can you please let me know on Talk:Kurdish Population? Thank you. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 12:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is best to have all this information in the Kurdish population article rather than the Kurdish diaspora because Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran are not considered part of the diaspora. This would eventually open the flood gates with users arguing that it is necessary to have to pointless identical articles due to there being 4 countries [i.e. Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran] which are not part of the diaspora- yet the rest of the information would end up being the same. Thus, I agree with you 100%.  Turco  85  ( Talk ) 13:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you for your help and advice. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 13:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Kurdish Population and Kurdish diaspora and a more general comment
I'm sorry but there is no discuss. Only one anti-Kurdish user add template without reason. And about Kurdish diaspora, I think the title must be changed to Kurdish population. Otherwise, some anti-Kurdish users tried to remove information about Kurds in Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria. But their edits are not correct. Because Kurds are living in territories of Turkey outside Kurdistan. For example some Kurdish groups have been in Inner Anatolia some centuries before. They are different from other Kurds who are living in Turkish Kurdisntan and new emigrants from Turkish Kurdistan. In Iran different Kurdish groups who live outside Iranian Kurdistan. I'm not Kurdish but I don't want to allow anti-Kurdism. Our most constructive way is changing title of article Kurdish diaspora to Kurdish people. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yousuf Miah
Hi, just thought I'd add a note to say that I completely understand why you removed the speedy deletion tag from the above page. I was erring on the side of afd when I first saw the page but by that time someone had already tagged it for speedy deletion. --  role player 11:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Abdullah Ocalan
I cannot agree with your POV. Council of Europe is political organisation. We can use their statement as source, but we cannot absolutize it. I we want to use it, we have to write According to X, According to Y. Takabeg (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yousuf Miah
Temporarily restored for you to fix as per your note  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Deleted again, AfD already archived, so OK now (I hope)  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  19:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ti (Native American Demon)
Have done as you asked, and done some more research. I quote from the talk page:

"I am always suspicious when a 'legend' is only referenced in print. I first googled for the names in the article, and got back here. I then tried for the books, and can find no evidence of any of them existing, or even of the authors existing. I would have thought a work consisting of at least three volumes published in 1992 would have at least one ghit. Also, the ouija board has writing on it - how could the NA women make them when there was no writing until very modern times in the NA peoples? (Wampum is a memory aid, not writing. It was used for storing, not communicating.) Ti couldn't have used a board for communicating as no-one would have understood - especially if no-one had done this before. I also find the dating interesting - I would like to know how dating like this can be achieved in an oral history culture. All in all, I believe this to be a very well constructed hoax. If I am proved wrong, I will be quite happy to apologise - but with evidence that is more accessible than the untraceable current set of references. I might have missed something. If I have, please show me where." Peridon (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Tiffany Midge
Thanks for your time on this. Your point about Hanksville being the older source makes sense (not sure why the owner's put it back up, though - it had been taken offline). Anyway, will work on an original article when I get time.) Vizjim (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

message to BillMasen
Hi, I'm not sure what you mean? What guideline have I misinterpreted?

If you mean the capitalisation guideline, do you mean Bounty Killer should not be a redirect, or it should? They have moved it now so that the capitalised name goes to the reggae guy, and uncapitalised goes to bounty hunter. Is that wrong? BillMasen (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Nyttend
A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:British Columbia Liberal Party leadership election, 2011#Requested move 2
So you're not willing to close it? 117Avenue (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of back log, I would like Talk:39th Nova Scotia general election closed. 117Avenue (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Closing discussion on Talk:Progressive Award Scheme
I considered your point about being involved, but it is now unlikely that anyone totally uninvolved will close it. Such discussions are supposed to be for 7 days, yet there has been no contribution to the discussion for over a month. I will leave it open but I think that confuses the merge discussion that I have started. The point Chris makes on that merge discussion is important. The number of people keeping an eye on and improving Scouting articles, particularly in the UK has declined and it is difficult to get a clear consensus. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of deletion template
I am wondering why you removed my speedy delete request template from Sandstone Antechinus? You are not in a position to delete page, and as far as I cant tell have no affiliation with WikiProject Mammals or WikiProject Animals so would not be aware of the guidelines on fauna naming conventions. I have restored the request and will wait for it to be deleted. I fail to see how it would be controversial the only editing done to that article for a number of months has been by bots. I generally assume good faith on these matters and will do so now, though I would have expected a little more trust in my judgement given my roles on WikiProject Animals and WikiProject Mammals. Kind regards Zoo  Pro  13:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

All set re. El Patron
Hi! It's been awhile, but I think I may have protected it due to very frequent recreation. It's been unprotected. :) Thanks for letting me know.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Fiona Shackleton
and the infobox? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  13:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed it accordingly. (btw, I did not know you were talking everywhere. So don't blame me ). -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * De Piep is imposing his eccentric pov against any consensus. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  10:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  19:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Where do we go next? Extended protection? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  11:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Please self-revert
Your attempt to fix the problem in the N/N only compounded the matter currently being discussed in AN/I. Your alteration now has me commenting on my own post, completely changing the meaning of both posts and interrupting the conversational and chronological flow of the discussion. As per WP:TALK, I'd point out that the comments by SB you are reinstating were themselves in violation of that guideline, as they refactored my comments out of order, when they simply could stated in their follow-up post that they were directed to another user. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (''cross-posted from my usertalk page) Respectfully, you are wrong, Dpmuk. Had you taken into account ScottyBerg's usertalk page history, you would see where this advice was offered repeatedly, before being immediately removed by the user without comment.
 * Bluntly, in shoe-horning my comment to after theirs, SvottyBerg interrupted the reply I had made to a specific useer well after the fact, and therefore made it appear as if I was replying to SB instead. I simply preserved chrono and conversational flow. If anything, ScottyBerg violated WP:TALK; I was simply fixing their mistake. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of where you made that point to the user in question. My personal feeling is that neither of you have got this quite right.  In my opinion they should have replied below your post but at the same level of indent to make it clear that they were replying to Hobit's post not yours.  Moving their post to below yours and indent it more is clearly wrong as it implies they are replying to you something they make clear they're clearly not and this is directly against WP:TPO where it quotes "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page" and by changing who it looks like they're replying too it clearly changes the meaning.  For this reason I won't self revert (I was writing this when you posted on my talk page) - if you're reply is to them I suggest you move it to after their reply to Hobbit (as the person who wrote it this is your right).  Would you be happy if they agreed to their post being below yours but at the same level of indentation and your reply to them below that but at one more level of indentation - if so I'll suggest this to them. Dpmuk (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As per your suggested solution, I don't mind them using the same level of indent (though they might want to include a dbl line break so as to avoid confusing our posts), but it seems like SB is trying to exclude me from my own conversation, like a boor at a party trying to hijack the conversation. I doubt they would agree to the arrangement. I'd ry, but I am guessing they'd simply remove the post without reading it. Again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
You have  new messages ( last change ). / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Henry Wood requested move.
You seem to have closed the discussion but not actually made the move - see Requested_moves/Closing_instructions if you need more info. You also stated "Also move Henry J. Wood to Henry Wood.", but that move has not been discussed here and is controversial - see Talk:Henry J. Wood. PamD (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Macr86 and requested move closures
I left a comment on their talk page. I think this approaches vandalism. If you notice any more, let me know and I review and take what I consider to be appropriate action if merited. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Mandaue City Central School
I though schools come under organizations. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 08:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest
I'm not too sure what the thing in requested move was for, either. harej 00:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I did follow the correct process
Maybe I didn't the first time. I don't understand since it's a redirect. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 15:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I finally realized there was another section. Thanks for trying to help. I was about to do the db-move. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 15:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I can really see that section now. It has lots of requests. Before, I looked and only saw the one which had that nasty message, but it appeared my edit worked, so I ignored it. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 22:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou!
I too have no idea why my attempt at moving the page didn't work. But thanks for doing it for me, Dpmuk! BoundaryRider (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you too, for your professional support on merging request of Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Pogba
He played half a game in a friendly - doesn't seem to have done much to comply with the standards. Peridon (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:CCI for User:Kittybrewster
Hi Dpmuk,

Just a heads up that according to the instructions for starting an entry at WP:CCI, you probably should have notified Kittybrewster of the action on his/her talk page:

''After submitting a case, notify the contributor by adding  to the bottom of his or her talk page. It is not necessary to notify individuals who are currently blocked for copyright infringement, even if temporarily.''

I have now posted the notification myself, so this is just a note for future reference really... Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)