User talk:Dpmuk

Template:Palestine foreign relations

Hello, I can't understand why you think I'm "a brick hall". Is this just because I don't want undisputedly obvious mistakes (like outdated figures) to apear - in a template which is not likely to be deleted (even in your opinion)? Do you really want this template to contain - at the mean time - undisputedly obvious mistakes that have already been fixed in the article? Additionally, I don't understand why you think I'm "insistent on keeping two versions of this article going, one in the template, one on the actual article". Not really. I just want to fix undisputedly obvious mistakes in the template, and if you think you have got a better way (rather than copying from the article) for fixing those undisputedly obvious mistakes - you're invited to fix them in your manner, without copying! Anyway, I like you, think that: 1. there should not be two versions of the same article, and that: 2. it now looks like deletion isn't possible; I'm just adding another reason why the template can't be deleted: The result of the original discussion was "merge", whereas the original discussion was about merging more updated documents into the article - which still contains the outdated documents; If the template is deleted before it's merged, the original resolution won't be fulfilled. So not only are you invited to revert the copy I did and to fix the undisputably obvious mistakes in another way (even without copying from the article), but you are also invited to merge the template into the article - in order to fulfill the original resolution. Note that if this had been done before, no dispute would have arisen. Eliko (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Just let you know the truth: no part of the template was merged into the article - since the original decision was made. On the contrary: There were some attempts to merge, but they were reverted (by violating the 3RR). Hope you fix that somehow. Eliko (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Just popping in to say thanks heaps for all your help with the tedious and technical stuff to do with that template. Very much appreciated!Best regards, Nightw 15:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dpmuk. You have new messages at Neutralhomer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Dpmuk. You have new messages at User talk:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nirma University deletion

I agree there were some bits in the edit history of Nirma University that were constructive, but as I mentioned on the talk page the article quickly deteriorated into an advert after creation. It needs a complete overhaul at the least, and fishing out the constructive bits from the history might prove to be a suboptimal endeavor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tt801 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

CSD notification

Please don't forget to notify the creator of an article when you nominate for CSD, e.g. IAS 11--SPhilbrickT 16:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections with url provided

I'm curious: how was the inclusion of this subcat messing up the count? I hadn't noticed any problems before (although maybe I just wasn't looking in the right area). VernoWhitney (talk) 13:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like I figured out the magic to the template which solves the problem of counting any of the empty monthly categories, or at least it has in every example I've seen over the last few days. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Main page error

Fixed, thanks for letting me know. I've also fixed a typo in your talk page notice. Graham87 01:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries. :-) Graham87 01:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Requested Move

Sorry, I had plain not even realized there was a discussion to close! Definite oversight on my part. Thanks for explaining this to me. Even in all this time there are still quite a few things about Wikipedia that manage to escape my awareness one way or another. - Vianello (Talk) 23:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: the Karl move

Since I don't believe in most Wikipedia pages helping anymore (AFD, RM, DRV, you name it), I started a new discussion on the 2010 AHS talk page after I made the move. I personally think breaking naming convention is dumb, especially if Karl 2016 turns out to be a double Katrina or something.Mitch32^{(Erie Railroad Information Hog)} 18:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

LSM

Hey, a lot of the text seems to have been copied and pasted from their website. - Haymaker (talk) 06:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Karl 2010 move

Hi. I understand your point, and to a degree agree with it, but I must decline the request as it would go against both the letter and the spirit of the protection policy, as this is a textbook wrong version case. The page's move log has had seven entries in the two days before I applied the protection as an emergency measure (the alternative was to start blocking people under the three-revert rule), so there is significant edit-warring involving the page. No one can't really say that either title is stable, since if the page were unprotected, other well-meaning good-faith editors would probably resume reverting titles back and forth. (Moreover, since the previous move request hinged heavily on whether the storm would be retired or not, you can make the argument that the current discussion is revisiting that point and superseding the previous move request.) I am afraid that moving the page while the discussion is ongoing would produce an impression equivalent to endorsing one title or another. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Boué Soeurs

Just a heads up that Boué Soeurs was speedily deleted. This wasn't one that was worth putting much effort into saving. While in agreement that the subject is notable, several editors expressed concerns with the content itself, Best to delete and start over.--RadioFan (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey - Need Help with Kwami the Maniac :-)

Hey Dpmuk:

I've nearly got myself permanently blocked fighting with this power-hungry User:Kwamikagami person. You had spoke up once, along with Toddy1 and some of my co-contributors on cancer articles, about incidents wherein he screws things up unilaterally, then smarts off to everyone and weasels his way out of it with excuses, and then NEVER seems to have any punishment over it! He messed up a couple of areas I know of BADLY (ship names, and now cancer - my area), and it looks like he may get away with it AGAIN. Any chance you could come over to ANI and help some more?

Best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC) a/k/a User:Uploadvirus

User:AlemanJoe

This isn't an article true, but it still contains allegations that a living person is an alcoholic and abusive and is therefore definitely not appropriate. Valenciano (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Aquileia

I recently restored the Patriarchate of Aquileia as a single article, since the episcopal and temporal are the same thing. I don't know on which basis the division was made, but it was clearly wrong. Ciao and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dpmuk. You have new messages at Crusio's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Earl of Leven

Perhaps I'm being dense, but I don't see that page listed on WP:RM and there was no discussion of a move request in the talk page history. The root of the problem is that the earldom passed through two female holders in their own right; in most cases, peeresses in their own right (suo jure) are included in the numbering of holders in the title, hence the numbering on Leigh Rayment's page. In this particular case, however, the usual reference works accessible to me (older editions of Burke's Peerage from Google Books, Cracroft's Peerage) leave the two countesses out of the numbering, and it seemed to make sense to follow those sources. In addition, the other Earls of Leven about whom we have articles are numbered without including the two countesses. IMO, it makes sense to have our whole suite of articles consistent; if we want to renumber the earls, we should do them in batch. Choess (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Primary topic

Hi Dpmuk - I've got a quick question for you. I've been thinking about your position in the Corvette debate, and the more I consider it, the more I like it. I was wondering if you'd have any inclination to try to amend WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to add something along the lines of what you were saying there. My understanding of it is something like: "In the interest of reader efficiency, where there are two likely topics for a base term, the base term should be the title of one of those topics even when it is not strictly the primary topic - especially when the other topic is naturally disambiguated." Does that summarize your opinion? Do you have any desire to try it out? I think this language would have short-circuited the Corvette debate before it started. Dohn joe (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I think it could be worth a try although I suspect it may be best to start with the case where one has a natural disambiguation and the other doesn't as otherwise I think the whole idea may get shot down on how we decide which one should go at the base name. If that gets accepted and seems to be working then we could think about trying to expand it. Dpmuk (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think limiting it to the natural disambiguation scenario makes sense. I also think that it might be wise to wait for a bit, looking at the flurry of activity going on right now regarding the "educational value" language. Maybe one of us could give it a shot in a month or so.... Dohn joe (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I think one of the main reasons for having a dab page at the base name when there is no clear (real) primary topic is so that page statistics are reliable indicators of usage. That way if one of the uses does become primary, it will be clear from the page statistics. As long as one of the uses is at the base name, there is no way to know how many users searching with that base name were actually looking for the article at the base name, or something else.

For example, in the case of Corvette, all we can tell from the page statistics is that the ship type is not primary. We can't tell if the car might be. Maybe it is. If we move the dab page to Corvette and a few months later we observe that the page view stats for the ship type are only a fraction of those for the car, then that would be a strong indication that the car is the primary topic. But as long as the ship type remains at the base name, we can never obtain that information. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of a redirect

Thanks for undoing my request for speedy deletion of the redirect: United States of American. I see now that such a redirect does fit the criteria for keeping it; it's plausible that a user could enter "American" instead of "America". Good job. — Wdfarmer (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The redirect was actually from Confederate States of American. The whole situation wasn't helped by a bot redirecting it to Sherman's March to the Sea while Confederate States of America was briefly, incorrectly, made a redirect to that page. Dpmuk (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct, I typoed in my message. — Wdfarmer (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Stansted / Luton Airport

See the user talk page. This IP user has continued to refuse to discuss their edits, which are not in accordance with the agreed project guidelines at WP:AIRPORTS. There is nothing wrong with boldly editing, but this user's bold edits have been reverted (see BRD). The missing part is any willingness on the part of the editor to discuss the changes. I can't see any other avenues to explore other than to treat the edits as vandalism (refusal to BRD, against the project guide). Please let me know if you think you have a different view on tacking this. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy?

Hi. As you note, it is not clear to me that Maulvi Ghulam Rasool is notable, per A7 speedy rules. Your thoughts? You can respond here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Errm, I'm really not sure how best to deal with this. As you rightly say in it's current state it appears an A7 candidate but the copyvio material does possibly suggest notability (although even then only barely). Prodding seems unlikely to be successful given the creator's continued interest so I won't object if you tag it A7 and let an admin make the decision. Dpmuk (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Clerking?

Hi. Understanding that you're working on your thesis and may not have much time at the moment, would you be interested in clerking? If so, I'd like to get together some copyright admins to talk about it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk:J Milburn

I have responded on my talk page, and will continue to do so for this thread. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Dpmuk. You have new messages at Night of the Big Wind's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Solid Waste Policy in India and Plastics Recycling and the need for Biopolymers in India

Dear Dpmuk, I am the ghost writer for the above mentioned articles. I am most grateful for your very helful, step-by-step guide to prevent deletion. The writer is of great authority, and I am just helping her get her material onto a more public domain. I understand the concerns Wikipedia has about Copyrighted material. I shall follow the step that is most convenient and quick, as we are eager that such contemporary materials find their way to where they can make a difference. Your page having been subject to deletion often is very ironically amusing too. I am glad of running into this hiccup, it helps me better understand Wikipedia's policies. Thank you for your time, we appreciate it. Patel almitra (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Devayani, under the guise of Almitra Patel

Nebraska Association of County Officials

Thanks for tagging this while we work on the copyvio issues. Interesting problems. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Central Singapore Community Development Council

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Central Singapore Community Development Council, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 06:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)