User talk:WikiDan61/Archive20111101

Archive created 2011.11.01

Prevention on the entry Sandigan Phi Solid
Good morning Sir,

I was wondering on how i can prevent this article from deletion? This article was made as a record or "online history reference" on one of the many Fraternities here in the Philippines, how can we make this notable? credible? thank you.Theodore8087 (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you contacted me on this as I've nothing to do with the article or its deletion process, but I'll explain what I can. The article is nominated for deletion because there are no reliable sources used as references within the article, and the nominating editor could not find any when he searched for them.  If you can provide such sources, you should do so.  You should also make your opinion known at the relevant articles for deletion page linked above.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Aburatorigami
Thank you Dan61. I am just learning on wikipedia and I haven't completed the article. Please stay tuned as I am finishing up the errors you pointed out, along with the citations.

--BeautyGuru (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)beautyguru

Aburatorigami
Thank you for your guidance and taking the time to help a newbie.

--BeautyGuru (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)BeautyGuru

Thanks for your help
WikiDan61-

I appreciate your help and comments regarding my baseball announcer article. Although I feel it is encyclopedic in that many fans may want a logical, cited, reliable source for this information; you may have a point about it being fancruft. Is it possible that it could be a link connected to your already existing list of major league baseball announcers for each team? That way it may get noticed by users and that would help me complete the list and determine whether anyone is indeed interested in such a topic.

Friends and I (not for academia but for blogs) were debating this topic and could find no clear, concise source for this information. As wiki is easy to edit (sort of as I am learning as I go thanks to your tips), we thought it might be the best place to make a credible source that listed this information.

Again, you bring up many valid points in questioning the legitimacy and need for this type of article. As an educator of middle school, I am very glad to be involved in the debate over information sharing and even happier to see how people like you really do actively make wikipedia a credible source for some information. My wife is a librarian and is fascinated by this dialogue we have going. We have long disagreed with the knee jerk reaction at schools to blindly say things like "no wikipedia can be used for any research." We feel that is wrong for many topics and your prompt, intelligent and thorough vetting of my article is proof.

Where does that leave us with our list of catch phrases for major league baseball announcers? Well I would just say that it is a simple chart designed to allow people to compare and contrast different methods of expressing the same observation. In some ways it may have nothing to do with baseball but everything to do with syntax, language and the poetic description of live events. Perhaps this type of chart, if properly sourced and vigilantly updated, has a place in our pop culture discussions, language discussions, regional colloquialism discussions and certainly baseball discussions.

As a newbie, I think I am writing this to you on your page but would love to post some of these points on the discussion page. Did I do that properly?

Thanks again, Doug — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catanzdl (talk • contribs) 17:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Neumann International
Hi WikiDan,

Thanks for your message regarding my new article.

To be honest, I read the articles that you sent me, and I do not understand why it does not fit the guidelines.

I noticed that a number of similar companies appear on wikipedia (in many languages), and I found it important to add it.

Would appreciate your feedback.

Thank you!

Tomsterwik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomsterwik (talk • contribs) 13:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * if you don't understand why your article doesn't meet the guidelines, then you may not have read the guidelines well enough. Specifically, there is no evidence of significant coverage indicating that Neumann is not just another recruitment company.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Introduction To Hebrew Logic. Part One: The Ketoret.
Thank you for your thorough and quick editing. In my view deleting a book on the ground of self publishing is not in accordance with the Wikipedia spirit or values. Self publishing is a trend that will grow as it is more profitable for writers. In order to avoid publicity to unfamiliar writer I deleted his name, and the entrance should be judged on the merits of book. The book offers considerable answers to Jewish believers, in addition it offers a new model and a theory of everything. I asked to scientists about this theory. None of them dismissed it.

In summation it is an important book both artistically and philosophically.

The writer declares that the book is fictional. Therefore deleting the value is justifiable only if it doesn’t contribute anything of significant to human thought – and I of course dispute that. I expect Wikipedia to judge by facts rather than circumstances of publication. Thank you again for your professional editing Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.egalut (talk • contribs) 18:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is inappropriate to delete the name of the author of the book "to avoid publicity". Wikipedia is not about generating publicity, but on reporting encyclopedic content.  Part of the encyclopedic content in any article about a book is the author's name.  Hiding the name implies that the author is somehow trying to avoid scrutiny.  And, whatever you feel about the importance of this book from your own personal perspective, if the book has not been the subject of independent reviews published in reputable sources, it will not merit a Wikipedia article.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Introduction to Hebrew Logic
Under the impression of your first message I decided to stick to the facts that cannot be refuted meaning the contents of that book. This is my first, and probably the last, attempt to write an entry for Wikipedia after many years of using it. I didn’t think omitting is inappropriate in an open source environment – since someone of interest will probably try to fix it by providing further information or links. Finding the writer’s name by the way is simple for example at www.bn.com so I didn’t quite understand your insinuations. I enjoyed reading the book and in my view it makes a distinct contribution to human thought to justify an entry. Any way I found it inspiring enough to write about it. I didn’t expect to encounter hostility toward a new member. I will make future contributions where I feel they are welcomed such as at www.goodreads.com or other venues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.egalut (talk • contribs) 21:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you believe I have acted with hostility toward you. That was not my intention.  My intention was to inform you that Wikipedia has certain standards, and that the article you have written does not meet these standards.  It was an invitation for you to become familiar with the standards and to improve your article.  If you choose not to do so, that is your choice.  And I made no insinuations; I merely inferred from your own comments in the initial article (Details about the writer are not provided, both its private name and surname are very common) that there was some shade of secrecy over the authorship of the book.  This seemed to me to be inappropriate.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Introduction to Hebrew Logic
Not offended. Instant messages can cause missunderstandings. Your editing greately improved this value and I appricate the work you invested.

Those who are unfamiliar with Hebrew names, the majority of Wikipedia English readers, might come to the conclusion that it is the first name that pops in Google. If it was John Smith I would not have written it. This paragraph indeed does not contribute information but might prevent readers’ from jumping into conclusions.

One of my R&D managers jokes that he reads the instructions only when he runs out of options. One thing is for sure writing for wikipedia makes one read the rules. Tim.egalut (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Dan Please accept my apologies for over reacting. Your response was not and could not be mistaken as hostile and I was not offended in any way. Thank you for excellent and professional editing. I have come to the conclusion that deleting this entry is appropriate at this time. I will not contribute to Wikipedia without consulting you first. Thank You Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.egalut (talk • contribs) 18:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't need my permission to contribute to Wikipedia. You just need to contribute in a way that meets the policies and guidelines.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

ITHL
I am a friend of Salvia J. and was asked to comment to this discussion. I must dispute both notability and accuracy: Notability:

The book (Introduction to Hebrew Logic) provides a revolutionary model. According to this model the speed of light consist of two components Pc and Fc. Since only Pc is observant we recognize Pc as C (the speed of light). Fc is the component that explains why the speed of light seems to be constant.

Sending beam X against beam Y, the two beams will move at each other at the constant speed of light (C), this is the conventional theory of relativity.

Sending two locomotors(X and Y) against each other at the speed of 90 Miles per Hour the two locomotors will collide at 180 M/H. What makes the speed of light so different that it doesn’t bound by simple Algebra?

This exactly what the book Introduction to Hebrew Logic answers.

Let say that the front wheels of engines x and y are welded by unbreakable welds to the same steel track. Assuming that the engines are powerful enough, the track will bend. The shape and frequency, or the amplitude, of the bended rails is determined by the power of the two engines (and other factors such as the qualities of the steel). Since we can observe only one engine (Pc) we mistake the result of the two engines (Pc + Fc) as the speed of only one (Pc). In our mind Pc=C, whereas in nature C=Pc+Fc.

According to Introduction to Hebrew Logic - quantum at the edge of the beam triggers Pc and Fc. This is the meeting point of the theory of relativity, quantum physics, and string theory.

Since beam X is riding on Y’s Fc, and since beam Y is riding on X’s Fc, the speed doesn’t change it stays C, the only different is that now we can observe two opposite beams in the observable space. This model is as revolutionary as Kant’s Copernican revolution, and Einstien’s theory of relativity. Accuracy:

In my view the account provided by tim.egalut should be deleted on account of accuracy, rather that notability. The book offers a unifying theory of everything in chapters 8 and 9, all the other chapters relates to philosophy in its widest meaning: ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, and philosophy of science.

Miscellaneous: Originally the book was intended for circulation only among friends of Salvia J. Yeshiva students discovered the book Xeroxed it and circulate it as an underground book of Zohar. Therefore circulation is now open for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.230.209 (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please don't throw such gibberish at me and expect me to be amazed. If you can't understand the concepts of relativistic physics (and I admit, they are complex), please don't tell me that the real answers lie in the Hebrew scriptures, written 3000 years ago.  I'm a man of faith, and look to the Bible to inform me about my faith, but not about the realities of the physical world.  God has endowed mankind with a wonderful intellect to be able to discover his wonderful design through established scientific methods, not through mumbo-jumbo. If you have anything of substance to say about the deletion of this book, you should address your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction To Hebrew Logic. Part One: The Ketoret.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
MJ94 (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank You
I understand your point. The ficonal statement is important untill the delete. I guess Tim will not object to the delete and will appology to you for his out of place comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freindofsalvia (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Richard Sprenger
Hello Dan,

Thanks for your feedback. I shall review the article and try to update it accordingly in line with your feedback.

Thanks

Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Ford1979 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Beynon Installations
Still new to this thing so I have no idea how to actually write back to you properly. How do I move the page from the public to my user page? I thought it was there already. (Sprinter9 (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC))
 * I can take care of the move for you. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, there are so many variables to this. Clearly trying to do this while in class is not the brightest idea.

(Sprinter9 (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC))

List of Beynon Sports Surfaces Installations
Hi, I noticed that you've userfied that page but I have just nominated it for Afd, so I think it shouldn't have been moved out of the article namespace without a discussion. Must've been some sort of edit conflict. De728631 (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was (as I have noted at the AFD). I don't think the AFD was really appropriate since the user's comments at your talk page indicated pretty clearly that he had intended the page to be created in his userspace. I think the AFD should just be closed as a non-admin closure for now.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I read on my talk page, the creator is simultaneously writing on several articles and intended to use this list as a standalone supplement for his main article, hence the redirect at the bottom of the page in an attempt to link to his main article. And such a practice is nonsense in my opinion so that's why I was filing for deletion, even more since he had removed a prod that I had placed before. I won't mind a non-admin closure though, as long as the current list is not restored in the article namespace. De728631 (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be worthwhile to keep an eye on this editor's contributions as he makes his start at Wikipedia. Better to steer in the right direction than to discourage altogether.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Thanks for closing the deletion discussion. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

iChill page
WikiDan61 -

I was wondering why you have nominated my page for deletion? What is the problem with the page, and what can be done to fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradas (talk • contribs) 19:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I explained the situation very clearly on the proposed deletion (which you deleted) and now in the deletion discussion. The article makes no assertion that this product is not just like every other product in its category.  Wikipedia is not a place to advertise any particular product, nor is it intended to be a comprehensive directory of every product in the world.  Products, like all other subjects, must meet notability guidelines to be included, and iChill does not appear to meet these guidelines.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

iChill is notable because it's not just a relaxation drink (which there are many of), but the makers of the product claim that it is the world's first relaxation shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradas (talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Which makes it notable because it's small? Or because its manufacturer says so?  If you have comments about the deletion of the article, you should address them to the deletion discussion.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What makes 5-hour energy notable, or Dream Water, or Redbull, or Rockstar, or Monster? I'm not trying to argue, I just want to know what I need to change to make my page "viable" by your standards. There are links on my page to news articles, the FDA, the origin of relaxation drinks (although remember this is a shot). Any help you could give me would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradas (talk • contribs) 19:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes those other products notable is the fact that they have received significant coverage in independent, third-party sources. This is likely because they have made a lot of noise for themselves through notable advertising campaigns and sponsorships.  Whatever the reason they have become notable, they have done so, and there does not appear to be any indication that iChill has.  If you can provide evidence of significant coverage (i.e. not just press releases that the company has published, or to an FDA page about the nature of dietary supplement regulation which does not mention iChill (or relaxation drinks) at all), then you might have something.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The iChill website says under media coverage that they were featured on Good Morning America, The View, and was voted retailers choice hottest product of 2010 in health and wellness. This information is all on the ichill website. But for it to be valid I need to find this information on a website other than the iChill one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradas (talk • contribs) 19:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is correct. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I just made some adjustments to the page. Please check it out and let me know about your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradas (talk • contribs) 20:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry -- just not seeing any real notability here. Claims of coverage on The View and Today cannot be verified at all.  Coverage at Good Morning America appears to have been limited to coverage of the genre, with this brand as an example,(see ) but not coverage of this brand by itself, as would be required.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I made another adjustment about it being the world's first relaxation shot. If you'd like to take the time you can google "iChill on The View", or "iChill on the Today Show", or "iChill on Good Morning America". Or you can check youtube.com for the televised commercials that the product has. I'm assuming videos are not proper sources for Wikipedia. It's a notable product. Let me know what else I can do to improve the page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradas (talk • contribs) 20:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've told you the problems I have with the page. The page is nominated for deletion.  Make your case on the deletion discussion page.  Nothing you say here will have any effect on that discussion.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your time and help. Bradas (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Psychic in Suburbia
I fixed the article before it was deleted, so can you review it again? If not, I'll request an undelete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slam360 (talk • contribs)
 * I can't review the article once it has been deleted (but an admin might be able to), but I did notice that you had modified the article somewhat prior to its deletion. Sadly, I'm afraid that your conflict of interest as the show's producer would make it difficult to be complete neutral on the topic.  If you think the show merits an article, I suggest that you request one at WP:Requested articles.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Rymatz (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
noq (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Milroy Goes info are correct
Milroy Goes info also be found on
 * http://www.goenche.com/interview_details.php?id=6
 * http://goenche.com/GOESCOIN_FILMS
 * http://www.goes.co.in/
 * http://www.klonisky.com/media
 * http://www.v-ixtt.com/client/details.asp?id=3761
 * http://www.v-ixtt.com/client/list.asp?offset=20&id=18

hope this info will help you verify

also check IMDb http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1964699/ and or just search Milroy Goes on google you'll find some info about him.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwritingoes (talk • contribs) 16:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My concern about the Milroy goes page is not that the information is incorrect, but rather that the subject is not notable. Since the page has been nominated for deletion, you should direct any comments related to the deletion or retention of the article to the appropriate discussion page.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Message from John Bond
Hi Dan, John.Bond954 here -- thanks for commenting omy first article ... how does one actually wikify? :) John.bond954 (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Ok I'm a dummy -- I actually clicked the link and looked wikify up I'll be addint internal links --- beyod that, what do you suggest? John.bond954 (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you follow the "wikify" link, it will tell you how to wikify. Basically it means to make the article conform to Wikipedia standards by including internal links ("wikilinks"), and by formatting the article according to the manual of style.
 * By the way, you'll notice that I have moved this discussion to my talk page. You had originally left this comment on my user page.  All discussions with other users should occur at their user talk pages; it is considered somewhat rude to edit another user's user page.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Demographics of Huntington Station
What you have to do is click on the link, zoom into the Huntington Station area, and then click on "Place". Then, you have to click on the "Race" and "Ethnicity" tabs to get the number of people of each race/ethnicity. From there, you just calculate the percentage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Checkmatechamp137 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the gauche edit on your user page -- I'm on the rest of it ...appreciate the input ... John.bond954 (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks bro -- I be ultimate noob -- you be helpful old pro your input much appreciated. I hace cleanup to do on both articles I've worked on (Andros Island, edited; Les Standiford, created) --- will get those straight before moving on to other things ...

Again -- ty --- John.bond954 (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Inviting your eyes
After 3 years, 7 months, and 5 days... I feel I can give something to others who might come aboard as confused as was I. WP:Schmidt's Primer (shortcut WP:MQSP) Whatcha think before I go live?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I like the idea you offered. THIS is the result. Decent enough?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Done
NOTABOUTYOU is live. Thanks for the inspiration.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

why did you delete my artical there was nothing wrong with it
why did you delete my artical there was nothing wrong with it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjkirk99 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete your article. I'm not an administrator and do not have the authority to delete articles.  If you give me the exact title of the article, I can look into who did delete it and try to track down the reasons for it.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A two-fer

 * Thanks for the double whammy!! WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply about the ASSort algorithm article
replyment was added to my page as you requested on your page (if i got it right).. OfekRon —Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

Talkback
Cerejota (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Cerejota (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Citing and footnotes
Thanks so much for your response and tips. I am all about doing this the right way.

Quick question: Since I have already entered references, what is it that I need to add and where in order for the inline citations to be linked and numbered to the references at the bottom? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyshauncia (talk • contribs)


 * In order to cause a reference to appear inline, you must place the reference tag in the body of the article, following the text which the reference verifies. For example:




 * produces:


 * This is a sentence that includes a sentence that includes a reference.


 * References


 * I hope that clears things up. If not, look at the directions under WP:Citing sources and Help:Footnotes.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Pikahsso
I really appreciate your help Dan. I have added inline citation to my article. Please review, and let me know how everything looks. Thanks again.

Ladyshauncia 20:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 17:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

many thanks!
WikiDan61- I am writing a note regarding the changes you made to my Jeff Pearce (American musician) article: if that's what you call a bit of cleaning up, then I say "thank you sir- may I have another?" :) your work- especially with the references/footnotes, is beautiful. As a newbie, I'm slowly picking up the correct way to do things.  I was wondering if you could add a disambiguation page for the search Jeff Pearce?  Right now, the search leads directly to the Canadian musician.  If that's not possible, that is fine.  I thank you again for your work! Lavacheisfetchez (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU! Lavacheisfetchez (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Cerejota (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for defending the ER process. (Diffs have been supplied, as requested, in good faith, btw.) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 07:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much! WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for editing my first Wikipedia article
Thanks for significantly contributing to the Nantgarw tradition. Your editing has improved the quality of the layout of the page.

tabulabells (talk)    16:10 (GMT) 16th Sept 2011
 * My pleasure. My goal is always to improve the project.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Marc Dos Santos
Disruptive editor aside, what *do* you think about going back to the pre-September 20 version, with a few tweaks and updates? JohnInDC (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that both the before and after versions are equally unsupported by references. However, the before version is more succinct, with less of a "personal reflection" feel.  The updates to the infobox, and the section on honours might well be kept (although I'd really like to see references for the honours section).  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about this version? It looks reasonably well supported to me.  Plus it actually includes a photo that's not a copyvio.  This is sort of what I had in mind (and don't disagree about the infobox changes).  JohnInDC (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes, that version is in pretty good shape. I'd support a reversion to that version with no changes at all.  (The infobox has a fairly clean listing of the managerial posts so it shouldn't need to be updated at all.  I'd say "go for it", but I suspect that the COI editor will revert any changes you make.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was looking for a second opinion on substance, which I now have.  I'll wait a bit longer to see if he tries to edit more, or upload any more photos.  He may wind up getting himself blocked for collateral reasons.  Thanks for noticing the whole thing in the first place -  JohnInDC (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the note over on the AfD I created. Is someone going to set this chap straight about what is an appropriate Wiki article? ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 22:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You recently wrote

 * Might I suggest that, given the nature of your class, you have your students post their articles in their own user space for review prior to publishing in the main article space? This would save people like me (new page patrollers) a lot of work cleaning up these articles.

You are the second or third editor to have raised this issue, and I frankly, don't get it. New page patrol is all about cleaning up articles, especially from new users. I'm not sure I understand your concern. In RL, if someone doesn't like their job, they can either quit or get fired. Somewhere along the line, it appears that new page patrol morphed into "tag and bag" rather than "cleanup, fix, and guide". I'm thinking seriously about raising an RfC about this current process, because it appears to be discouraging new editors, particularly with its focus on deletion rather than cleanup. The Foundation has recently confirmed that this focus on deletion is impacting editor retention numbers. See Wikipedia Signpost, 8 August 2001, "New WMF research substantiates link between newbie retention and rejection of their first contributions". Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to clean up the articles of a few newbie users. For the most part, the articles that newbies create that are not candidates for immediate deletion are also in reasonably good shape to begin with, because users who make a serious effort to create a new article have generally done some homework before they start.  But when a professor sets an entire class loose on the project with little or no instruction on how to use the process correctly, that increases the NPP workload significantly.  I don't fault the students, and I don't really fault the professor.  I just made a suggestion that, as their teacher, he would be in a better position to review their work in the private user pages and provide whatever instruction he can before the articles are published.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the same problem, but from a different POV. I'm saying, look at the scope of NPP.  From what I can gather, you and a number of other users are using NPP differently than it was originally intended.  You first began editing with this account in June 2008, so you may not be aware that at one time, people would patrol articles and give them a boost on their way to becoming quality articles, not focus on getting rid of them.  Further, editors on NPP would often take the time to greet users and help introduce them to the community, not just tag, bag, and template them.  At this point I'm convinced that NPP and the use of semi-automated tools to patrol, plays a large role in the loss of new editors.  This is because patrollers have lost sight of the goals of the project, seeing it as more of a video game than as a complex interation between the reader, the editor, and users who maintain the site.  The quickest solution to fixing this problem involves the implementation of a tier-based system within NPP, that consists of separate tiers focusing on welcoming, cleanup, article rescue, help desk, and deletion.  The goal is not to tag and delete an article as fast as possible, but to welcome a user and help them learn the ropes as fast as possible.  Most people doing NPP have little or no contact with editors except for delivering deletion templates to their talk page.  That needs to end.  We need NPP to mature, and to realize that editors are at the core of the encyclopedia, and new editors even more so.  This involves holding hands and taking quality time to teach them how to edit.  Because no single patroller will be able to devote this much time to such a task, a tier-based system where one "hands off" a user and an article to another tier is the ideal solution. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to your comments
Hello, Thank you for your comments and attention to our project. I am aware of many issues among the student-created articles, and am addressing them to the best of my knowledge and abilities. Bear in mind please also that I am a single instructor with a large number of students; and that I see them once a week. Consequently, the project has been relying heavily on the efforts of good samaritans such as yourself. The students have been instructed on referencing in class, and the sandbox has been recommended (as of two days ago) as a safe place to write their drafts. However, the project is very different from what students are used to, and I am a newbie myself. Inevitably errors will be made and inadequate articles created, but we are expending all energy to correct this tendency. We are now trying to establish an appropriate system which will allow articles to be vetted before going to mainspace. Thank you! Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

CSD A7 on Cimorelli
Hi, I wanted to let you know that I have challenged your WP:CSD A7 on Cimorelli. In my opinion, winning the Malibu Music Awards is a claim of importance sufficient to survive criteria A7. I have tagged the article for its lack of references and questionable notability; I have no objection if you would like to pursue an alternative deletion process. Monty 845  21:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sikat deletion
Hi Dan, We wanted to contact you directly regarding your concerns that led to the deletion of Skiat on Wikipedia.

Sikat is a very small charitable trust and we are trying to build our profile by utilising social media and public domains such as Wikipedia, We do have a website which is www.sikat.org that you can find lots more information our main aim is to support the children of the Philipines in having a more positive future. As you discovered we are registered with the charity commision, and the organisation is entirely run by volunteers. We are confused to why our page was deleted and we would very much like to renew it as soon as possible.

We appreciate your concerns but hope the explanation has relieved them. Please do get in touch with us directly if you have any questions

Kind Regards Linda & Jen

lmanlises@gmail.com irishjenabroad@yahoo.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.110.236 (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not to be used as a venue to promote your cause. It is not a social media outlet, it is an encyclopedia.  Please refer to the appropriate guidelines for what can and cannot be included in Wikipedia.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul R Spiring
Just a quick message to thank you for clearing-up the references to this page for me. All my best. (Rapidoman (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)).

Okay. Sorry. I'm new to WIKI. (Rapidoman (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)).

Review
This user has asked for Wikipedians to give him/her feedback at an editor review. You may comment on his or her edits at Editor review/Katarighe. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Cinsyla Key
Thanks for cleaning up there. But as a reminder, external links do count as sources. Regards, De728631 (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's why
Our friend Wolfie used to be known as Tyburnentertainment and has a WP:COI with the film articles he's editing. That's why he appears to know better than we do about these films. Elizium23 (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Spin–lattice relaxation in the rotating frame appears to be a duplicate of Spin–spin relaxation.
Hi WikiDan61:

I am trying to create a new wiki page on  "Spin–lattice relaxation in the rotating frame". Since I'm a newbie, I used the template for " Spin–spin relaxation" since they are similar to each other in theory and in practice. I also decided to leave in the similar text for the sake of uniformity but if you look closely, you'll see differences int he text as the equation. Once the page is populated with references and images, it will look much more different. FYI, I am an expert in the field of MRI physics.

--7Tesla (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In the future, as you are working on articles that are not yet complete, you should work on them in your user space (for example, at User:7Tesla/Spin-lattice relaxation in the rotating frame. There you can tweak the article to your heart's delight, and when it is finally ready, you can publish it to the main space.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Can I get some more info on why you flagged my recent page for deletion?
Hi WikiDan61, You flagged my page titled "Ultimate Study Method" under G11. When writing it I did not feel it was promotional- simply presenting key facts about the system with 2 cited references and a website. It would be kind if you could provide some tips on how I could improve it or remove parts you believe are promotional. Thank you RerumC 203.218.187.133 (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the page has been deleted, I don't have access to the contents to respond exactly. As I recall, the article discussed the method in overly glowing terms, used vague non-specific terms to describe the method (as are often found in advertisements where the advertiser wants to impress the reader, but not actually inform them), and used as references
 * A book that may well have discussed ancient Egyptian mnemonic methods, but which appeared unrelated to the topic at hand, and
 * The book about the method itself, which would be considered a primary source.
 * Given the overtly positive nature of the article and the lack of substantial references, I felt that the article was really only serving to promote the method. If you choose to re-introduce the article, I would suggest that you find references in reliable secondary sources that indicate significant coverage of the method (to provide evidence of notability), and that the language used to discuss the method be somewhat less vague and less "glowing".  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Wiki- user
The article of the reduction of Military conscription in Cyprus is a serious and improtant issue that will possibly lead to a referendum in the following months. It is prudent NOT to delete the article as it is not promoting a social or political change but just states information on a top importance issue in Cyprus! Article is unbias and I will try to fix the problems in oder to be balanced and not support any side of the arguement! What do you suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaPetridou (talk • contribs) 15:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article suggests that the idea of a reduction in military conscription is supported by various political factions on Cyprus, and that the idea might be implemented at some time in the future. But then again, it might not.  There is already a section of the Conscription in Cyprus article dealing with this proposal.  I suggest that you allow that section to stand rather than creating an entirely new article for a concept that may never become a reality.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that there is a small separated section for the reduction of military conscription but again it is not enough. The proposal for reducing military conscription in Cyprus is a social problem with excessive importance. It is discussed daily in Cypriot press and all parties are organising monthly conferences on the issue! What the article lacks is a section of the arguments against military conscription and those policitans or political parties which support it! Can you allow me for journalist reasons to keep the article but making changes of paramount importance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaPetridou (talk • contribs) 16:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Wykon
Sadly, I had to deprod it. It had previously been deleted by prod. If you take it to afd, hopefully it will meet the same fate as the previous incarnation. Regards, Syrthiss (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that you've applied that policy correctly. Based on the criteria listed at WP:Proposed deletion, an article may not be proposed for deletion if it
 * has not previously been proposed for deletion.
 * has not been undeleted.
 * has not been and is not being discussed at AfD.
 * The article in question has not been previously proposed for deletion. An earlier incarnation of the article was deleted based on a proposed deletion, but that's not really the same thing, is it?  In any case, since you have de-prodded this version, an AFD will ensue.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the standard line of thinking is that a recreation of a prodded article that was deleted is seen as a poor-man's DRV (or a late objection to the proposed deletion). Essentially, the 'original author' came back and found their article missing and recreated it.  As you say, it will end up at AFD and hopefully be deleted. Syrthiss (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey, thanks for pointing out the copyright violation on Gone to the Dogs for me, im new to Wikipedia and its the first page ive created. I have now written it in my own words, thanks:), and thank you also for adding in the references. Bruno Russell
 * You're welcome. Always glad to help out. In the future, leave your comments to other users on their talk pages, not their user pages.   WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh yer, sorry !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruno Russell (talk • contribs) 18:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Simon Jameson's AfD
You may want to add Mark Talbot and Emma Doyle to Jameson's AfD as they all are a part of the same show. I've prodded the two, but might as well add to the same AfD if you feel it warrants it. Bgwhite (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure of the correct etiquette - but thank you for editing my article
Thank you WikiDan61 for taking the time to edit my first article. As a new user I am still on a learning curve and you have helped me very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P J Bell (talk • contribs) 03:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. That's how things work around here.  Some people create content, others improve existing content.  I like to think of myself as one of the improvers.   WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

SPIRE article
FYI, I've added two (not all that reliable) references, dealt with the copyvio, formatted, etc. the Spire Federal Credit Union article.  HurricaneFan 25  15:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nicely done, although I still don't know that the bank meets WP:ORG. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)