User talk:Dank

I'll reply to your message here; if I post on your talkpage, I'll watch for a message there.

Admin stuff

Copyediting

Images

Links

News around Wikipedia

Shiny things

WP:Update

1 (12/07-4/08) - 2 (5/08-7/08)
3 (8/08-11/08) - 4 (12/08-2/09)
5 (Mar) - 6 (Apr)

P2Pspot

Taking to AfD. Declining db-spam. The first 50 of 1200 Google hits didn't establish notability; nothing on news.google.com; a few hits on Google's blog search FWIW. I would have {{db-web}}'d it if I had had the patience to skim all 1200 Google hits, but I didn't. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes have been made to the P2Pspot page. Can I please borrow your expertise to verify the page is Wiki appropriate? -Webbpage —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbpage (talk • contribs) 18:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The way the discussion is going at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P2Pspot, it looks like the page will be deleted at or before the end of the 5-day discussion, because there are no reliable sources to establish notability. See if you can find some discussion of this product in major newspaper, magazines or books. Some web links are considered reliable for some purposes, but that's trickier. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Kindliness

Ah, a kind word from you has brightened my evening. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Populist?

That was the first time I was ever called that. :D Now, the "is, and wants to be" is interesting. I can understand the "wants to be", because I don't think I have popular support on anything so it would be hard to be an actual populist. Do I even have support half the time? I mean, the opposes kinda seem like everything else I'm involved with. I always tend to be the lone dissenter, the guy in front of a tank, and chances are I get run over. But thanks for thinking of me as a populist. It makes me feel as if people perceive that I have a large amount of support. : D Ottava Rima (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I say a lot of things that no one says. I'm sure my brutal honesty and longwindedness will serve me well in my wiki-career :) I'm thinking of "populist" as an evolutionary strategy, a common instinct, rather than a result. Populism can work, and it can be much appreciated, but it takes talent and hard work. You love Wikipedia and put a lot of effort into it, but the gruff attitude will attract people who like to hurl insults; if you don't distance yourself from these comments, then voters may assume that you share their views. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Look at all the support you're getting in your RFA ... I don't think you can claim to be a voice in the wilderness when you're getting almost 50% enthusiastic support :) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, is that 50% of the supports are enthusiastic? Haha. That isn't as good as it sounds. :P I'm thinking that when the mass opposes are done (the old grudges), then they wont be able to even out against the long time friends (many of who haven't looked in yet). I'm hoping to top 100 on one side or another (hopefully both!). But yeah, I think the general comments about "great article contributor" on both sides works as a sort of RfC on me in general. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I get attacked a lot for being very supportive of Jimbo and ArbCom (both groups being labeled as "tyrants" by many). So, I found it a little amusing that I would be against "tyrants". Its all perspective though. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks! :P Remind me to mawl you during the next discussion we are involved in. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I get carried away at RFA; I can't say you've improved every area unless I actually look at every area, and I'm way too lazy to do that. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess you are right. But still. The fact that you considered it then reconsidered it is amusing. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I was serious about being more than happy to help. If there's some work I can help with, or you want an opinion on how something might come across to the denizens of RFA, please let me know. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've spent long enough on RFA to know what to expect, and nothing is that surprising. As you can see, there are some people coming out of the wiki woodworks. :D But if you want to help on any content area that you share an interest, I am always up for that. I love to try and get as many people to work on various pages of mine as possible. My user space has a list of things being worked on. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Independence Visitor Center

Declining {{db-spam}}. I deleted the one paragraph with a promotional tone, added endsections, and found references establishing notability. Also, there are 4 things to do if you're going to tag articles for speedy deletion; the easiest approach is to use WP:TWINKLE, which does them all at once. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Explore Kent

This was created by an s.p.a. with a highly suspicious name, User:Kentexplorer, whose sole purpose seems to be to advertise this program and the allure of Kent. I believe he/she probably works for Explore Kent. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I follow that, it's just that I don't see evidence that there's any organization called "Explore Kent"; this seems to be the Kent County Council picking a snappy slogan, and maybe hiring someone to do a website. Would AfD be okay with you? I know you "outrank" me at CSD by a mile, but I think discussion might help, for my education at least. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as you do the AfD paperwork, go ahead. And I don't think that "rank" is a meaningful concept among we wielders of the Mop-and-Bucket. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Dumez Bridge

As a cultural sensitivity thing, I'm really uncomfortable db-spamming Iraqi public works projects. Let's discuss at AfD. 3 admins who are very active in CSD work have all edited the article previously, and none of them tagged it for speedy deletion. There are 3 companies mentioned in this article, and it's certainly possible that the intent was promotional, but none of those 3 companies get more than one sentence of mention. Also, there are 4 things to do if you're going to tag articles for speedy deletion; the easiest approach is to use WP:TWINKLE, which does them all at once. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. My reaction was prompted by the way I found it, which was via the Contributions of a new user (who created the Dumez Bridge article) who put the bio of one of the bridge's engineers into WP:BLP. Plus mentioning the engineers and all those pictures, it just felt a bit spammy. I wasn't entirely sure it should be CSD'd but I thought tagging it was a very easy way to get someone else to consider the issue, as I had to go out. (Well, it worked...) BTW I'm giving twinkle a go, thanks. Rd232 ^talk 20:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it did work, and I think your reasoning was pretty good. But if you ever decide to run for admin, people tend to look very closely at speedy deletion tagging, since it's very easy to lose new contributors with a quick deletion and accusation of "blatant advertising". - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Macroview

I've created a new page for macroview with references from online sources. Where can I put it to be reviewed? Don't want it being deleted again. Thanks. Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moejoe199 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Where you have it, User:Moejoe199/Macroview, is fine. I added {{noindex}} since some admins will delete anything they view as a promotional article in userspace without that tag. (That keeps it from being picked up by search engines and mirrors.) I'll be happy to help, but it's going to take a while; I've got a lot of wiki-duties, and then I'll have to educate myself on some issues concerning software articles before I can give you useful advice. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats not a problem, I've still got a few things to add to it and some research to do myself. Thanks for your help. - Chris User:Moejoe19909:30, 3 April 2009

Instyler

Declining db-spam, taking to AfD. When there's a long list of "reports" in reliable sources, but the marketing campaign for the product screams "promotional", I'd rather not have one person (including me) making the call, I'd rather see all the arguments first. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

CyberBunker

Declining db-spam; article has been around for more than 3 years, edited by many admins active in CSD. If it's that bad, someone would have noticed. Feel free to revert to an earlier version or take it to AfD. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Tombras Group

Company is listed in Hoover's, and there are many awards listed in the references. I agree with you that companies in the business of promotion deserve a hard look, but the tone doesn't seem to merit a speedy deletion as db-spam to me. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The article can still be spammy even if the company is listed in Hoover's and has all those awards - they speak to notability, not spaminess. – ukexpat (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to AfD it, I'll keep it watchlisted, and maybe I'll learn something. Db-spam is a hard call. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, much appreciated. – ukexpat (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Good work. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Lighting Design Software

Declining db-spam; if the article is promoting some company, I can't tell which one, and the creator's contribs don't look like the contribs of a spammer. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, don't worry about it...

I didn't catch that bit about the author's father. Best leave it deleted for COI issues. Thanks for asking, though. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

ITunes Live from London - David Gray

I don't understand why this discography entry is up for deletion. Just like any other music discography entry, it describes when the EP was released, some info about the songs, and a tracklisting. If this information does not suffice to keep it on Wikipedia, then I guess most of the wiki-pages created for single releases, should be as well.

Unit371 (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add to my previous comment, that there are other iTunes EPs / releases that have their own wiki-pages as well, such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes_Originals_%E2%80%93_Alanis_Morissette

Naturally, the title is different here, but nonetheless it concerns an iTunes-only release, which would make it no different from my entry.

If there's a reason not to stay consistent in rules about music artists' releases, then I'd be interested to hear it!

Unit371 (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

When an AfD discussion is started, that's the place to make your case, and voters will generally listen to arguments like the one you're making, but the vote is currently 0 keeps and 2 deletes. My rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITunes Live from London - David Gray was: Declining db-spam deletion, taking to AfD; none of the 34 ghits (for "Live from London EP" david gray) suggest notability for this "online only" album, but I can't speedy delete for that. 'Officially released" albums of notable musicians are often presumed notable regardless of ghits ... but was this an "officially released album" per WP:MUSIC? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Allright, in that case I've no clue what to do or change in order to keep it. As far as I can tell, many other artists have "Live from London" EPs, released through iTunes, and have actual articles on it here on WP.

I was just trying to expand the amount of information on David Gray releases. If that is not the aim on WP, so be it. Delete away!

Unit371 (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

So far, the voters are saying that releasing on ITunes plus no ghits indicating notability means delete. I added the discussion to the "list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions"; you may want to post a note asking for people to look in on the deletion discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Music really isn't my thing; it could easily be that WP:WPMUSIC people will think that an ITunes release should count the same as traditional releases. Add your vote! - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hello, I do not know enough about WP to start asking people on here for their opinion or start a poll. It makes me wonder why you nominated my article for deletion when "music isn't really your thing" in the first place! Shouldn't you have left it to the WP-Music article writers to begin with? I really don't think I should be bothered to keep my article, when this ungrounded and apparently biassed noomination was caused by you. If you don't feel responsible for the mess, that's fine. I'll just await deletion, knowing I did my part to make the David Gray article more accurate and expansive.

Unit371 (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Click on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITunes Live from London - David Gray, read the deletion discussion, and if you'd like to say any of this there, click on "edit" and type. That's all there is to it. It's not a problem if the format is wrong, someone will fix it. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Trikr

Declining db-spam, taking to AfD; tone seems descriptive rather than promotional, and I can't db-notability (A7) software (although there's a current discussion at WT:CSD on this). - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Uconnect phone

Declining db-spam, taking to AfD, this is a judgment call. This is an option on every "2004 model year or newer Chrysler, Jeep, or Dodge", meaning that there may be a lot of owners out there who'd like to see an article about it, although the article as written is too promotional. Most hits on "uconnect" aren't referring to this product. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliped at the AFD --DFS454 (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your research. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Pen on fire

Declining db-spam; tone not overly promotional, and notability is not a problem. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy International School

Declining db-spam, taking to AfD. I will vote for db-spam at AfD, but there's a lot of support for keeping schools whenever possible. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

SANE (charity)

Declining db-spam for this 3-year old article. Reverting to an earlier version is fine, AfD is fine, but it's rare that no one will tag an overly promotional article for 3 years, and I don't believe the version at the beginning of Dec 30 was promotional enough to merit db-spam. I agree that the edits of Dec 30 by User:SANEcomms were overly promotional, and I've just reverted all but one of their edits to this article and blocked them per {{spamusernameblock}}. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC) tweak 15:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

On Tour in Brazil

Declining {{db-context}}; it's an album, and all the context is in the infobox. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Odd, the infobox didn't show up for me last time; my bad R3ap3R.inc (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Wfls.png

Yeah, BJBot tagged it for deletion because it is orphaned. Since I was the main uploader of the image, I requested it speedy deleted. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 4, 2009 @ 14:58

Okay, I deleted. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 4, 2009 @ 15:11

Jack Horner (horse)

Declining {{db-context}}; please don't use this tag 2 minutes after the article was created. Taking to AfD; no apparent notability. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Little Flower Public School

Declining db-spam speedy deletion; consensus seems to be against db-spamming high schools. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Artemide

Declining db-spam; doesn't seem unduly promotional to me, and the article has had many editors. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Desycling page

Hi Dan,

While is was publishing my first contribution to Wikipedia, you already deleted it. It was amazing how fast this went, even during the editing, I lost all I worked on. It's amazing how you did this.

But now, I'm really convinced that I should publish this information in wikipedia, what do I do. I can't even make a start, so in what way do I publish information?

I have a lot more things to publish about design, but in this way I'm not very motivated to put energy in this.

Thanks, Dosigner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosigner (talk • contribs) 21:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

When I do a Google search in English for "desycling", none of the hits look like reliable sources. In order to establish the notability of your company's concept, we'd need to see significant mentions in major newspapers, magazines, and books (and there are other reliable sources, including some websites). English sources are not absolutely required, but it's hard to have an article on en.wikipedia.org without them. I see there are a lot more Dutch sources than English, and I see that there is no article (or redirect page) named "Desycling" on nl.wikipedia.org. Is there any page on nl.wikipedia.org devoted to what you're calling "Desycling"? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dan,

Thanks for taking the effort to reply. First, it's not my company. At all. I'm trying to write a few wikipedia articles on design strategies, and this is an interesting one that builds on cradle-2-cradle, so I started with this one. I understand now, that I should first write the article offline and then paste it in there, but it was my first attempt ever to do a wikipedia article, so please be patient with my efforts. Indeed, most sources are Dutch, so maybe I should start there first, but I wanted to take a more global approach for this series of articles, but... you're right, I didn't even think about this. I'll go to sleep now, but will try again tomorrow or next week, being better prepared and not publish the first 3 sentences first to see how it looked, because it was gone before I even figured out how to make a header.

Thanks,

Dosigner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosigner (talk • contribs) 22:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a couple of reliable sources that have articles focusing on "Desycling", then I'll be happy to re-create the article in your userspace. Or, if you can't, but if you want to write an article on another subject that has that material, I'll re-create the material you need. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD of JEDEC memory standards

Hello,

You haven't edited the article in question, but since you are or have been actively involved in the IEC prefix discussion (sorry to remind you of it if you, like me, got tired of the uncivil discussion and wanted to have nothing to do with the issue anymore), I invite you to consider the nomination for deletion of the article JEDEC memory standards, which I believe can fairly be said to have been created only as a hammer for the discussion.

I beg you to try to keep your sentiments about the actual IEC prefix on Wikipedia question out of the deletion discussion and consider the merits of the deletion proposal, namely, notability in the Wikipedia sense (WP:N), regardless of which units you believe Wikipedia should use.

The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JEDEC memory standards. --SLi (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Roel Dijkstra

Declining db-spam. The tone didn't seem promotional to me, and the comic strip is discontinued. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Accademia Italiana di Lingua

Declining db-spam. DGG did a lot of work on this, the subject seems notable, and the tone seems mostly okay to me. Feel free to edit any sentences that seem promotional. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up on this. It looked like it fit the criteria to me, but any article that can be saved from that, should be. RevZoe (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy tagging work. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

University of Washington School of Dentistry

Declining db-context deletion because of the extra material added after the page was tagged. There's some disagreement over how fast to apply a db-context tag, and we're working on it; check WP:CSD#A1 in a week or so and see if there's any news. This article was tagged 8 minutes after creation, which is a problem at least for people interested in adminship, because many voters at WP:RFA see quick db-context, db-empty and db-nonsense tags as BITEy. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dan bit of a mistake time wise on my behalf regarding these articles I thought it was an hour and 8 minutes that had elapsed due to GMT on my PC as you can see here when I explained my actions to the article creator. I am aware of the time difference now and wont make same mistake and I will watch above discussion. BigDunc^Talk 10:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

My preference would be to change the db-context messages so that they are clear about giving the creators a little time to get started; then taggers wouldn't get accused of being bitey at RFA. I'll make the argument at WT:CSD. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

List of highest grossing concert tours

Declining {{db-context}}. db-spam, db-attack and db-copyvio are generally considered urgent; the other speedy tags aren't, and many people consider a db-context tag 2 minutes after article creation to be BITEy. There's some disagreement over how fast to apply a db-context tag, and we're working on it; check WP:CSD#A3 in a week or so and see if there's any news. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Jerstad Agerholm Middle School

Declining {{db-context}} deletion. db-context means that we can't figure out what the article is about; this article is about a school, and it looks okay now. Also, a lot of people who vote at AfD in articles about schools feel strongly about keeping secondary schools even when no sources are found. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Tamara Mellon

Declining db-spam; the article has been around a long time with many good editors. If the current version is too promotional, revert to the last version that seems okay. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Of interest...

...since you mentioned populism: this probably inappropriate edit (and summary).  Frank  |  talk  16:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Frank. I see the current version of the article doesn't start off with "...Reich is a populist...", which seems to me to comport better with WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps; I haven't looked at the sources. That article, however, is constantly besieged by folks claiming to be personally "in the know" regarding the subject.  Frank  |  talk  17:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

As the link points out, our article on Hitler doesn't begin "Hitler was a bad man"; it begins "Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party." People can decide for themselves whether Hitler was a bad man, and whether Reich is a populist. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It's the edit summary I'm more interested in. IDK if he's a populist or not :-)  Frank  |  talk  19:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Joanie Bartels

I don't want you to delete my Joanie Bartels page. Just in case you did'nt know, she is a very popular children's singer. So, please don't delete it. Thank you for all of your time. Frederick Dickerson (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I declined the speedy deletion as a copyright violation and took it to WP:AfD. Now it's not up to me whether the page is deleted. Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joanie Bartels, and after 5 days, the page will usually be kept if reliable sources have been found establishing her notability. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Data.gov

Declining speedy deletion as db-inc. Although the site doesn't go live until next month, it's being widely written about; check the sources. For instance, from broadcast.oreilly.com: "What Obama's Data.gov initiative will do is both simple in concept and stunning in implication. It is data housekeeping." - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Good job

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	I'm feeling generous today and just saw you clearing out CSD. Accept this as appreciation of your good work :-) Pattont/c 13:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Balladyna

This is not a SPAM look at imdb

ITS BALLADYNA/ THE BAIT also at pl.wikipedia.org - Balladyna (film)

See WP:NFF; typically, we don't allow articles about films unless and until they've been released and widely reviewed in English-language sources. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

But this is US -POL co-production, but Why somebody deleted Dariusz Zawislak as a director he had previous works could you help: Iook at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1002241/ Dariusz Zawislak http://www.filmweb.pl/o13373/Dariusz+Zawiślak http://www.adyton.eu Would you be consider to undelete page or create new based on pl.wikipedia.org - Dariusz Zawiślak Best regards M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MARTHA WARTA 2000 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Samantha Thavasa

Declining db-spam deletion; article needs references, but article has been here for over a year, and I'm getting a ton of ghits from reliable sources. Feel free to edit the article for tone, but the article seems roughly as promotional as every other article about fashion, to me. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. I didn't realize that the acceptable level of promotional-ism (is that a word?) varied depending on the topic Dougofborg (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking that, if a new article for a brand of beer lists supermodels who drink it, that's promotional. But supermodels who are associated with handbags seem okay to me in an article about handbags. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Transport Trust

Hi Dank55: based on the contributor's other edits today, it sure looks like spamming--they've created four articles promoting this agency, all with the same promotional text. Thanks, JNW (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I had to run and wanted to grab that out of the db-spam queue so that I'd have time to think about it ... I should have said that in the edit summary. People sometimes confuse db-spam-worthy promotionalism with completely appropriate promotionalism ... for instance, descriptions of initiatives by an elected government enjoying popular support, or a neutral description of something promotional that someone else is doing. I'll go look now. Thanks for being gentle :) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It behooves me to be civil--even when a series of edits seems smeared with the fingerprints of promotion, there may be buried therein a kernel of notable content. Thanks for taking the time. JNW (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. What I want to do here is speedy them all, but move the content into the creator's userspace, {{noindex}} them, and have a chat. I think we should have at least one article on the subject, but I can't see a full paragraph to salvage that would allow me to avoid db-spamming them now. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. If there are sources to support significance of the Transport Trust, something could be salvaged. Cheers, JNW (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Disaster Risk Management in East Asia

Declining db-copyvio; deleted the copyvio sentences. The talk page mentions a previous AfD discussion. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wayzata west middle school

Declining db-context: context is clear, and we don't usually speedy secondary schools (unless attack, spam or copyvio). - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Nadja Uhl

Declining db-copyvio; I didn't see the copyright violation at that imdb page. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dank55 - Thanks for the comments - I agree it's not a direct cut and paste - but the Filmography section is clearly taken from IMDB with the four periods (....) and all. JCutter (talk) 05:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Even in the filmography, some of the words weren't the same (flight attendant for stewardess). The question is whether we're making enough of an effort to satisfy DMCA and other copyright laws; I have heard that small changes in a list of names and roles is sufficient. Thanks for your speedy tagging work. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Infrared night vision cameras

Declining db-spam deletion, since no product or company is mentioned, but prodding for the consistently how-to and promotional tone. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Association François-Xavier Bagnoud

Declining db-spam deletion; article has been around a long time, edited by many people active in deletion work. Feel free to edit for tone. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Name

Thanks for the heads up. Admittedly, I considered a name change request after R'n'B passed RfA, but to be honest, there's only been one instance of confusion to my knowledge (some time ago, an experienced troll vandalized R'n'B's page after I speedied their nonsense article). If it becomes more of an issue or if R'n'B would prefer that I change my name, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but for the moment I think I'm content to just take a wait and see. Thanks again. Rnb (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Works for me, happy editing. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation

Removing the copyvio material; declining db-copyvio deletion since we're getting some good discussion on the talk page. There's hope for a neutral article, eventually, about this clearly notable public transportation system. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for PlayBox TV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of PlayBox TV. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

ARGUS Software

Declining db-spam deletion; article has a very long history with lots of discussion. Feel free to revert edits or edit for tone. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Cha Cha Moon is back

Hi. I was patrolling the NewPages when I found Cha Cha Moon. I added a prod tag and added it to my watchlist. I noticed that you've already deleted the page. Just wanted to let you know. --Gardenhoser! (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it and salted it for 3 months. The same editor had added promotional links to Chinese cuisine, so I gave him a {{uw-spam4im}} warning. Thanks much for pointing it out. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Millechili

Declining db-copyvio deletion; a judgment call, but I think we can get away with tagging this as a close paraphrase instead. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. Apart from a couple of words it's a complete copy. – ukexpat (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ugh you're right, the words were rearranged but most of them are there. Okay, I've rewritten to avoid the copyvio. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have a moment

If you have a moment, I could use a hand or a referral to someone else who can help deal with this mess. At the current rate of things its going to get very ugly for everyone involved and I've done just about everything I can think of to avoid that. Tothwolf (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't tell what was going on. I'm not good with behavioral issues (ANI, ArbCom). Is there a deletion review coming up you want me to look at? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thus far it hasn't gone to ANI or ARB but I'm trying to determine if thats where it needs to go next. I've not yet filed a DRV, after looking though all the material I'm not sure it even should have one. A quick summary of the UCFD discussion is the only person pushing for these to be removed is VegaDark. The only other person who "voted" in the UCFD (which happened last December) was a SPA active on Wikipedia for ~4 months who "retired" immediately after an unsuccessful RFA. He scattered votes around random places around the time of the RFA and one of them just happened to end up on the UCFD for these categories. The main problem here is VegaDark has an agenda and has been trying to establish precedents to use for category deletions (specifically user categories). I can back up my claims with diffs and links (I'm typing this up in a hurry as I'm short on free time atm) but I'm just not sure where to go with this next. I've been trying my best to not step on toes since I returned to Wikipedia but I'm not sure I can avoid doing that in this case. Can you think of someone who would be willing to have an impartial look at this mess and lend a hand in trying to clean it up? Tothwolf (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's really quite simple- If you think the deletion debate was improper, file a DRV. I've said this numerous times now. What exactly is so hard about doing that? All the arguments you are making are arguments to be making at DRV. I'm not exactly sure what you expect Dank55 to do here. As for the other user who participated in the discussion, I have no clue how you came to the conclusion he was an SPA, but whatever argument you might have to help back up that claim should once again be made on a deletion review if you think that should change the outcome of the decision. As for me having an "agenda and has been trying to establish precedents to use for category deletions (specifically user categories)" I certainly make no claim otherwise. My agenda is for user categories to be collaborative, and I've nominated hundreds of them for deletion that I don't think have met this goal, simple as that. If you are asserting there is some sort of problem with this, then perhaps you should better familiarize yourself with the way Wikipedia works, as this isn't anything new. If you are honestly hoping for someone to step in and say "you know what? That deletion was improper, and you know what else? We don't even need a deletion review to overturn it!", then all I can say is good luck with that. I don't know why you seemingly refuse to file a DRV, but since that seems to be the case, and as I've given you ample time and notice to do so, the merge pursuant to the UCFD closure will be enacted in the timeline I noted on your userpage. For the thousandth time, I strongly urge you to file a deletion review if you think the closure was improper. VegaDark (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Several of the elements here are things I really don't have much experience with ... behavioral issues, sockpuppets, category work. The general idea on Wikipedia is that when you're having a problem, you don't pick a kind-looking person and ask for help; instead, you take the problem to the proper forum, and then whoever wants to volunteer their time will help you out. DRV sounds like the right place to go for this. If you think VegaDark might be doing something shifty but you're not sure what or how to handle it, you might try some lightweight process like Third opinion for mediation. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Dan – I'm sorry VegaDark followed me over here.
Thanks for the pointers. I'm rather disappointed with how bureaucratic things have become here on Wikipedia since I was originally active. At this point I don't think DRV really is the place to deal with the underlying issues. I'm trying my best to remain civil while dealing with this but it hasn't been easy. Tothwolf (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

VegaDark, I'm only going to say this one more time: Please stop trying to put words in my mouth. Tothwolf (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As someone who tends to hang around Deletion Review, I can understand why people are reluctant to use it. The style of argument there is difficult and legalistic--not was the decision was, but was the process by which the decision was made wrong. Still, Deletion Review tends to come to the right result more than half the time: I'd say about 55%. So you might as well go there and toss the coin, which is pretty much what it amounts to. (You might ask why i work there if it's such a problematic thing--I work there to try to get it from 50% to 55%. and I hope eventually to 60% and so forth.) Nothing in a system like this is likely to ever come out right all the time. Myself, I much prefer asking people for help than using formal process. What can work in a system like this is persuasion. Vega, i know i won't persuade you, but even by your principle, there are a very broad range of things that help collaboration. DGG (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Womenomics

Okay, I've added a ref to the other good refs, and I think it's good enough to survive now. I'm declining the db-spam deletion. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help... any good editorial ideas on how to not sound so promotional? Are there specific phrases I've used or ideas I've focused on too strongly, things I should avoid in future writing or try to clean up on this page? Thanks again! Jocelynp85 (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)