User talk:Rossami

More on Category:DOB missing

Rossami said: Good evening. Per the discussion about privacy concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays, date of birth should generally not be added to the biographies of living non-public or semi-public figures. So far, that policy has been interpreted fairly strictly with a pretty high bar being set for the definition of "public figures" who are assumed to have given up their rights to privacy.

Hello there. Are you suggesting we do not include the birthdates of these figures? So which birthdates are you suggesting we do and don't have to include? Or are you suggesting that we don't add the Date of birth missing tags? I merely assume that I try on every biographical article I make to include his or her birthdate wherever possible, and label the others, but is this no longer accepted? Please show me an example of an article where I have done this incorrectly. Bobo . 06:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point... Rossami, how does one know in which articles the DOB is being withheld and which ones are just incomplete by lacking it? Is there a tag or something so one can tell who is a non-public or semi-public figure and who is a public one? --ChaChaFut 06:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rossami said: The one I ran across was here. The recognition that we need to take extra precautions to protect the privacy of semi-public figures is fairly recent. But yes, it does represent a change in our intended standards.

All I suppose you're implying I should do is to change the Date of birth missing category to the Year of birth missing category. I might start doing this in the future, though I do believe every stub-class article needs to be treated as equally as its A***-rated neighbour, regardless of their notability, whether that be by inclusionist or exclusionist standards.

However, I have tended to include the birthdate of individuals in any instance I can find them, as it fills out the article just as if it were a first-class top-level article. Besides, in the event that one day someone comes along and knows every single thing about a person, it may one day become useful. Just my opinion. Bobo . 07:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rossami, thanks for your message on my talk page about this, but can you give me any specific examples of where I have added DOB or "DOB missing" category for non-public figures? MFlet1 12:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you're editing WP:DRV....

Do you mind moving the log page for today to its proper name? 2006 November 30, if compared to the other subpages, is completely wrong. And sadly, I'm on enforced Wikibreak until at least tomorrow. 24.89.197.136/Logical2u on Enforced Wikibreak 22:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Also, my User-talk page was probably not the best place to leave your reply (As I am on enforced wikibreak). I didn't have time to check the other pages, but since the header was inconsistent I assumed the page name was also inconsistent... Sorry to bother you. 24.89.197.136/Logical2u on Enforced Wikibreak 01:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

I see that you reinstated the deletion review for Briefsism as reverting the blanking by 66.93.139.242. This IP didn't blank anything (he added a statement and then removed it), and this umpteenth review of Briefsism was removed by Samuel Blanning as trolling. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 22:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can find some links to removed deletion reviews for Briefsism. Most were speedy closed and removed, and were therefore never archived. This Google search might give you some information on what is going on. Articles related to Briefsism (which was deleted six times) are The Cult of Briefsism (deleted twice), Third briefs (deleted once) and Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy (deleted 16 times). A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help on a deletion review

Can I trouble you for a little help? I did as you suggested, and transfered the contents of the milf listing to Wiktionary. Then they moved it back to Wikipedia, leaving a note saying that it is encylopedic, and put it on the abbreviation page, milf. Then someone went and deleted it again on Wikipedia. Its bouncing from one wiki to another, and it's left me really confused. Is it to late to propose undeletion, or am I just wasting my time here? I'm still fairly new to wikipedia, but it's leaving me with the impression it involves dealing with a lot of beaurachy. You've been the first helpful person I've struck, so i'd really appreciate a little guidance

Reillyd 06:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Magic term first used?

I see you have mentioned thi sin the talk page of the Peter Carroll article but the whole talk page is a mess. Please see my question about this this Chaos Magic term and when it was first used here. I hope you will contribute. FK0071a 23:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Eric Devendorf

Thanks for the help with pointing out the right template tag! Wikipedia is positively Talmudic, which makes these kinds of discoveries all the more fun. --Tenebrae 03:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Growing Degree Days - Question

Dear Rossami,

First thank you very much for your contributions to wikipedia. I really appreciate all this valuable work.

I have a question concerning the Plant development GDD's and the Baseline temperatures. What is the source for those values?

Doing research for a short essay about GDD's I came across this page. I found many scientific papers but the GDD values were nowhere so nicely compiled as they are here.

Kind regards Andreas

Please answer me to <andreas_obrecht>at<gmx.ch> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.162.111.119 (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I will try to reply directly but in case you check here first, I compiled those from a variety of websites that I found via Google search plus some statistics that were in an old BeeCulture Magazine article. If I remember correctly, the bulk of the research came from the Univ of Michigan. Rossami (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation level

Could you please repeat such a comment at WP:DDV? Some people seem have a hard time accepting that discussion is in fact better than voting. Thanks. (Radiant) 15:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear Rossami—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers.Tony 15:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenni Olson

You're going to kill me, I saw the number of edits it took you to put the tag on. I've deprodded the article above. I reckon the info at http://www.sfjff.org/sfjff17/filmmakers/d0719c-a.html is enough to build a good article on, and whilst any one of the claims might not be ebough to merit an article, I think put together they all do, and so I've removed the prod. But fair play, I'm in the process of listing it at afd to test our respective positions. Steve block Talk 15:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenni Olson Steve block Talk 16:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

I've pulled down an extensive rewrite, and I think I have covered all the issues that people had with the article. Olson has been noted as writing an historically valuable book, her film has received good reviews and three awards, as well as having cultural impact with regards the Golden Gate Bridge, whilst her roles as a festival curator and founder, website founder and maintainer, collector and her importance to her field have all been established through verifiable citations in reliable sources. I would hope that's enough substance to satisfy any notability concerns. Appreciate your further thoughts on the article at the afd. Steve block Talk 17:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of "Companies and Corporations" with "Organizations"

I read your proposal for a merger and added a comment in support of the idea. Has there been any progress? Kevin Murray 23:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Notability pages Organizations and Companies

I have written some proposed text for a merged and simplified page, please see the continued discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations). This is also posted at the Companies & Corporation page.

re.chainfall or Chain Fall

you can Google it in the Free Dictionary or you see the commercial ones on Google. Check Johnalden and read down to Chain Fall. The first time I saw one was in 1982. This guy from Maine had a one ton chainfall and we hoisted up a one ton steel beam. a double 2"X 6" was placed on top of a simple 3' high saw horse. The horse was placed on top the existing joist with supports under the joist. A rope was attached to the horse and a metal hook from the chainfall was attached to the rope. The rope on the chainfall was pulled inch by inch very carefully until it butted perpendicular under the joists. Does it Sound Dangerous??? This may sound unreal but it actually happened. So then my source is "live hands on field experience". I have heard the name chainfall only a couple of times and have heard wench used synonomously with it. It "appears" they may offer more mechanical advantage than the Block and Tackle. They are similar to the block and tackle except it uses a metal chain as opposed to ropes. The pulleys and the housing are all rugged metal and bolts. I do not know if "chainfall" is a provincial New England name or used widely in the rest of the country. Mechanics use them to hoist engines of all sizes. Initially I tried to find an appropriate section for it and edited under Pulleys that links to Chain Fall. I hope this is helpful to you. --Johnalden 03:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. How do you move the "Chain Fall" article to Chain fall? In the dictionary chainfall is all lower case and one word, commercial sites have Chain Fall both in upper case. I did not realize all the articles have upper case 1st. word and lower case 2nd. word. Thanks for the information. http://www.lkgoodwin.com/cgi-bin/quikstore.cgi?category=Hoists_-_All_Types http://www.sapsis-rigging.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=SRI&Category_Code=320 --Johnalden 18:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I like option #1 because in 2&3 it would be hard to determine prevalent usage with all the provincial bias. Chain Fall was moved to the wheel and axle article. The Pulley section is impressive. Did you start that article? We need to determine a name. I will defer to your decision on this. I lean towards being a descriptionist as opposed to being a prescriptionist of words if that makes any difference. --Johnalden 13:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:

Thanks for the information. I'll do the merging the page history [from User:Carie] to Pink moon1287 (then re-deleting the pages). I'll go leave a note on ~~each of those user pages~~ the user page right now. The note will contain: 1287 in the text. Pink moon 1287 16:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left it on User:Carie. Urine4Gas doesn't exist anymore. And that's ok. Pink moon 1287 16:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh and don't worry about the e-mail. I will no longer be needing that. Pink moon 1287 16:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Langstroth hive and beespace

You have a message @ [1] Andrew —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.160 (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

House Jack

I just did an article on the House jack. There is some writing stamped into the cast iron that says 2 1/2 and then a down arrow and a 10. Do you know what this signifies? I figured you might know. --Johnalden 02:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyways!! --Johnalden 15:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Roberts

A couple months ago, you prodded this article. The prod has now been contested after the fact. You may wish to consider an AFD nomination. GRBerry

Old discussion revived

Hi there. You commented on this old discussion. I've revived the discussion here, and thought you might like to comment. Carcharoth 14:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bees and inebriation

Please take a look at my rough draft at User talk:Filll/beedrunk and give me your opinion.--Filll 21:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the help of User:Dyanega, I have now revised User talk:Filll/beedrunk and I am pondering publishing it on WP as Bees and intoxication or some such title. Comments?--Filll 23:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bees and myths

I saw your comment in the bee history list, regarding the problematic "myth" section. As far as I can tell, it was added by a user who has written a rather dubious article: Aploximodoais, which is linked in that section. I wonder if that wasn't mainly a way to add some wikilinks to and from the article. Joyous! | Talk 04:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOB missing

Thanks for your advice, YOB missing is a much better Category for the people I am categorising, I'm just going through all the Argentine People on Wikipedia making sure that they have a place and date of birth if the info is easily available. Constructive advice is always welcome. RegardsKing of the North East 23:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Ralph Alvarez DOB missing

Hello, I was unaware of the policy until you removed and cited WP:BLP (you, er I, learn something new everday). To give you a little background on this article, it had been the subject of a WP:AfD debate (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Alvarez). To tell you the truth, I was shocked that COO of a major corporation was nominated and did some cleanup to include what appears to be standard bios for other major corporations and used this article on another McD corporate employee for the lower box: Fred L. Turner. On several corporate bios I saw, the DJIA was included as they are part of the average along with the DOB. In performing cleanup after inserting his box, I then put in the missing date tag because it appears on several bios I have in my watchlist that is over 520 articles.

None of that excuses my lack of knowledge, I now know something that I will keep when I come across similar posts. Thanks, Ronbo76 00:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of Birth

It may be that this policy you speak of is unrealistic. Those people in the very many directories extant, such as Burkes, Debretts, Who's Who, Kellys, Whittakers, Who's Who in Scotland, Dods, etc., all carry the dates of birth for living people/people in the public domain. Therefore it seems slightly silly to be making a stand on this point. David Lauder 11:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nbsp in section header

Can you describe the problem? I added this because at some screen widths, the title was split above and below the diagram. Dhaluza 17:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the new Firefox 2.0.0.1. It splits the title in two, and this looks really bad. The wasted white space is not a bad thing, because the previous layout always wasted the white space, and the new one only does it on narrow browsers. Would it be better to just include a non-breaking hyphen as well?

re: DRV notice

Thank you for the notice. I have added my rebuttal. If I misunderstood what you meant by "Google does not return hits based on the hidden html of a page", please let me know. However, Google does have a link: search operator that returns matches based upon links in pages and not the text of the page. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 20:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Even if we disagree, I would hope that we can do so professionally." I'm in agreement with that. I know we disagree on the benefits / problems of cross-namespace redirects. Despite that, your arguments at Wikipedia talk:Cross-namespace redirects, WP:RFD and elsewhere have actually caused me to soften my initial stance. I still prefer to see them deleted, but I'm far less adamant about that and am fine when they do survive. In this particular case, I just didn't find your argument of potential use compelling. I'd be much more sympathetic to demonstrated use. I recognize that puts us on opposite side of where to draw the line. If this gets overturned, so be it. If you ever feel that I don't live up to the "professionally" part, please let me know. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 23:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_24#List_of_literary_works_with_eponymous_heroines

Hi, I had no intention at all to make another statement to that deletion review. However, I just cannot remain silent after having read your summing up of the discussion. As over there is not the right place, could you explain to me what other "process problems" than the one I mentioned there might be and what would actually count as "new evidence"? I honestly have no idea. Also, as far as this deletion review is concerned, weren't there just as many "Restore" votes as there were "Endorse deletion" ones? (Maybe I didn't count correctly.) Or are votes not counted here? If not, what counts? Thanks in advance, and all the best, <KF> 00:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger - Organizations & Companies

In December I revived the discussion about merging the notability guidelines for Companies & Corporations into Organizations, with simplified text reducing the confusion of all of the special circumstances, which now reads like the US Tax Code. In mid-January I proposed that we make a decision by the end of January, and move to developing the text. The vote is now open at Talk Companies and Corporations.

--Kevin Murray 02:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Companies

I noticed that you have been working on fine tuning some special guidelines for notability of companies.

I’m trying to understand the value of having these specific inclusion-criteria for companies. If a company gains automatic notability from one of these criteria, how can you populate the article with meaningful information without having credible independent sources? If you don’t have independent sources it will fail on verifiability and/or primary research, and if you have the sources for the information, you’ve proved notability.

So why do you need special criteria for automatic inclusion of these special cases? I may be wrong, but it seems redundant. It’s like wearing a belt with suspenders. --Kevin Murray 00:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

e-mail

Do you have an e-mail address? 74.12.231.174 04:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for an e-mail address to be able to explain a misunderstanding. If you are worried about getting spam, you can create a throw-away account. --74.15.215.38 05:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the Wikipedia mail link. It's in the navigation bar on the left of the screen right under "what links here" and "user contributions". To be quite blunt, I don't give out my email address freely. The Wikipedia Mail feature sends me (or any other registered user) the message without exposing my email address to outsiders.

You should also know that most "old" admins don't respond to requests from anonymous users. We are all supposed to assume good faith but there's just too much vandalism out there and it tends to make you numb after a while. If you register for a user account and sign in, you'll get a lot better and faster responses. Rossami (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD

I did misread it. That's what I get for editing policy pages in the morning. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tall women, List of tall men

Please see new combined deletion debate. ~ trialsanderrors 20:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a reply. Cheers, Black Falcon 00:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could probably support the scope definition that you've described. But I don't think the current page would be much help in that regard. You might have an easier time to just start from scratch. It would help the discussion if you mocked up that proposed page in your userspace. It would especially help if you laid out the definition section that normally goes at the top of the listpage. Good luck. Rossami (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good suggestion. Which potential article are you referring to: List of the tallest men or List of men notable for their height? In the latter case, which I favor as more viable, I think it should be something like (this is, of course, a very rough draft I came up with in about 5-10 minutes):

This is a list of men who are notable for their height. It is limited to men who:
are notable only for being extremely tall or short (e.g., Robert Pershing Wadlow); or

are otherwise notable, but whose height (either tall or short) has been noted as directly relevant to (e.g., Yao Ming) or contributing (e.g., Peter the Great) to their notability.

Notability here is defined as an extension of WP:Notability. In order for someone to get on the list, their height (not they themselves) has to be mentioned in "multiple reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" (I think the non-trivial condition should be loosened here for the 2nd category of men--everyone recognizes that Yao Ming's height is directly relevant to his notability as a basketball star, but I think it would be too much to expect that there be published works out there that discuss only his height). As for section layout, I think it should be by occupation (maybe a separate section by height--but only if it the people in it meet the two criteria above). Please let me know what you think. Black Falcon 03:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images listed for deletion

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them.

Thank you. —Remember the dot (t) 05:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT

Hi, regarding this edit - My revision of the guideline was intended to say "yes, please do add verified information from current events to articles of note." Wording it the way you have is confused. You're saying "there's historical articles in wikipedia, that are current, that can be updated."

My intention was to get people to add to existing articles instead of creating "news articles". For example from the WP:NOT talk page, "David Beckham move to Los Angeles Galaxy" was created instead of just adding to "David Beckham"'s article.

Using the term "historical significance" also focuses attention to things historical. Even though technically all things past are historical, saying that ostensibly narrows the scope to "History" in most people's minds.

What do you think? --Monotonehell 15:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the clause differently. To me, an article that is "historically significant" is one about an event or topic that history will judge to be significant, not one that is about history.

My interpretation of the intent of the clause was to ask us to consider the reader 10 or 20 or 50 years in the future and to try to distinguish between articles that readers will agree were significant from articles that are about transient and ultimately trivial topics.

I agree with your goal that users should add "David Beckham move to Los Angeles Galaxy" to the "David Beckham" article instead of creating a newspaper-like "article". Those topics are much better covered in WikiNews. But some events shouldn't even be in the main article. For example, if the local Hillside Mall hosts a walk-for-breast-cancer, that might make the local news but it's hardly unique and has no lasting social importance as a stand-alone event. Even though it might be theoretically verifiable, it would be inappropriate to add such a mention to the Hillside Mall article.

I think both aspects of the clause are important. Is there better wording that conveys both senses of what we're trying to say? Rossami (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how you're reading it, and I read it the same way, but I'm concerned with how others may interpret it. To me "historically significant" and "encyclopedic" are one in the same. However, making calls on historical significance is very difficult when something is current. What seems important now because it's all over the media may be quickly forgotten. A lot of editors have trouble discerning the difference, as evidenced by the vast number of stubs created.

My concern with the word "historical" is a lot of people compartmentalise things into the grade school subsets "history", "science", "geography", "maths" and etc. If, for example, someone came across a primary source for a new discovery in science and then read the WP:NOT#news guideline and saw "historical significance" do you think there's the possibility that they may discount adding the information because of the misinterpretation? --Monotonehell 15:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. I really think that "historical significance" will be universally understood to be "significant from the perspective of history". But maybe we should take the question to the article's Talk page. Let's see how others interpret the phrase. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

It has been proposed that the following criteria be removed from this guideline: 1. The commercial organization is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications.3 2. The commercial organization's share price is used to calculate one or more of the major managed stock market indices.4 Note this is not the same as simply being listed on a stock market. Nor is it the same as being included in an index that comprises the entire market. The broader or the more specialized the index, the less notability it establishes for the company.

We are close to evaluating consensus, please join with us in the discussion. --Kevin Murray 04:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for "Fortuna saga" edit history

Just thought I'd drop you a line and let you know I appreciate it. Cheers! ― GrimRevenant 11:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi Camara thanks!

Thanks Rossami, for the history merge on Kiwi Camara. -SpuriousQ (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms

You hit the nail on the head. I was looking to see if the List of criticisms (which I shipped out to WP space for now) was substantially the same. It appears they are. Thanks. Chris cheese whine 08:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on RfD WP:CIVAL

Excuse me, Rossami. I don't quite understand your comment on RfD WP:CIVAL posted here. What do you mean by saying you had reviewed the redirect, was it nominated for RfD before or something? Pea ceNT 08:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Rodriguez (activist) restored

The page Jose Rodriguez (activist) has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate it for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. -- nae'blis 15:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Notification

I have replied to your comment at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Discussion. I believe this proposal to be fundamentally different from previous ones, both in its scope and its intent. If it's not too much trouble (I wrote a lot of text), I ask you to read my reply and, if you are convinced by it, reconsider the proposal outside the shadow of the previous (and in my opinion flawed) proposals. Thank you, Black Falcon 05:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Staines

Is there any need to remove items from the Paul Staines talk page, since there clearly is no libel risk? --Lobster blogster 08:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you responded to this user on his talk page. I think you should be aware that he is a sockpuppet of the banned user. See [2]. Could you perhaps intervene? Nssdfdsfds 19:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid Nssdfdsfds is talking patent nonsense here. Nssdfdsfds has been obstructing efforts to give the Paul Staines page balance. Nssdfdsfds refuses to discuss changes to obtain a concesus and acts in an obsessive and peculiar manner. --Lobster blogster 14:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CCD

thanks for your interest in this bee article. i agree completely with your comment about the recent spike being under-represented here. when i created the article it had the emphasis you are suggesting and another vocal editor gutted that part of the discussion. feel free to resurrect that thread, which i think is quite important. however, i dont agree at all with your name change idea. this name gives the article more academic standing and is the name scientists are using. try google for example. best regards. Anlace 15:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(disambig) → <disambiguation page>

I'd like to hear more on 2 issues you mentioned:
1. Consuming or Saving system resources: To what resources are you referring?
2. Preserving the history: To what history are you referring?
Also, thanks for the info about the the old DAB pages.
Quick link to RfD2 page Regards, JohnI 08:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]