User talk:Pan Dan

If you leave me a message here I may respond here. If I left a message on your talk page I will watch that page for your response.

Click here to leave me a new message

Archive

Archive through April 2007 [1]

GEE THANKS!

Thanks for that mean comment on my talk page. I need to find something constructive to do here! _I_ am a Jesus Freak 15:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion -Bostic St Clair

Pan Dan, you asked for sppedy deletion of an article I added. I am new to this. I do not consider my article as blatant advertsing infact I presented facts about Ms Bostic St Clair that will be of interest to people in the field of NLP.

So what's the next steps in these situations?

--Martin3400 23:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Market fundamentalism

Sorry, I didn't notice it was already listed 200.153.161.91 16:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Happy editing! Pan Dan 16:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Mark VI monorail

Do you recall tagging Mark VI monorail as a {{db-copyvio}}? The plot thickens: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 May 9/Images and Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 May 9/Articles. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ohhh, the thickness! Thanks for the note.

Hard to argue that the images aren't copyright violations, I agree. On the prose, all the sections also seem to be direct copies, except for the Load Tires and Guide Tires sections which seem to have been rewritten (partly with original research, perhaps, on the reason nitrogen is used). Pan Dan 16:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Have a star...

Just wondering why this was closed as no consensus. Sources were sought and none were found, and sourcing is a pretty basic requirement. (And 4-2 recommending deletion, not that I'm a fan of counting noses). Would you object at least to relisting this? Pan Dan 21:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Good evening (GMT time); upon reviewing my decision there, I think you're actually correct: general consensus was most likely to delete. I'm revising my decision, and closing as delete.

Thanks for the notification - take a barnstar...

		The Original Barnstar
		For being bold, and challenging my incorrect decision at Articles for Deletion, I, Anthony, award you, Pan Dan, the Original Barnstar! Kindest regards, Anthony 21:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Have a good one!

Regards,
Anthony 21:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Shepherd's Pie Advert

WELL congratulations on your continual hard work on disparaging and removing the work of authors due to your ineptness on finding sources and understanding what a stub is.

You must be very proud of yourself.

On the plus side, the deletion probably does compensate for your tiny penis.

I know I shouldn't bite the newcomers, but your pedantic attitude on something so trivial when the article had potential and when there's more important things to improve on Wikipedia is simply moronic.

I just hope the new user who created the article and managed to format it pretty well, has not been driven away by your idiocy and stupidity. Roger Danger Field 12:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources are a requirement at Wikipedia, and stubs are not exempt. This article went through the proper deletion procedure.

Instead of hurling insults, you could make better use of your time by actually looking for sources, so that the article can be properly recreated--with sources and without original research. Pan Dan 18:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, it didn't go through the procedure properly as it was clearly a non-consensus result. It was only deleted because of the excessive and unfair pressure you put on an administrator, simply because you couldn't take or recognise the decision and thoughts of the community. This is similar to the Norilana Books article you've currently put through AFD. Despite a mass people wanting to keep the article to edit and improve it (The whole point of Wikipedia might I add is to give people the chance to edit and improve useful content). If you had Wikipedia's core values at heart and not bureaucratic tones that are simply wasting everyone's time, then you would have withdrawn the nomination long ago.

You're hilarious "no sources" strawman is quite typical as well. You obviously don't recall that there was at least two sources that were reliable for the article. This is more than enough for a stub:

“ A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information. ”

You're the kind of person that has turned this encyclopedia from an information and neutrality haven into a PC, fascist regime that puts the vigorous keeping to rules above the will of the community and the predominance of content. Roger Danger Field 19:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hawkins v. McGee

Hi, I noticed that you had tagged this article as original research. Please bear in mind that legal cases tend to be self-citing sources. In other words, the case itself is generally the source of the material in the article, and the content of such an article can easily be confirmed by referring to the text of the case itself. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Not my business, but have you considered archiving your talk page? Cheers again! bd2412 T 04:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The section titled "Later use" could not be verified from the text of the court's opinion :). But I see you or someone else has now added a reference for that section. The sentence "This case is also famous for its mention in the book and film versions of The Paper Chase, as well as its use in legal education" remains unverified.

On the P.S., thanks for reminding me :) Pan Dan 10:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the fame of the case stemming from those mentions is unverified. But the book and film themselves serve as the sources that verify that the case was mentioned in each. My own contracts textbook (which I will add as a source now) says that the case "became part of modern contract lore" as a result of the book and movie. Thanks. bd2412 T 17:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your work on the article. Pan Dan 17:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Kanuki

If you go to the page for Bushido Blade, you'll see that the is a link for all characters. Including Kannuki, my intention was to do it this was as it looks neater, so please don't redirect.

Secondly I have no Idea what "Idependant Sources" are exactly - as I'm not an expert on wiki yet. If you could help me get them I would be very grateful as I really don't want it mereged it would mess it up too much. MJN SEIFER 19:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yo Pan dan

The nb crew wants a article— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyro666 (talk • contribs)

Need help

I am going back and forth on edits with a guy whose entire mission seems to add Islamophobic terms and websites to Muslims and Islamic movements. My question is how do we get an independent judgment on this matter. I am referring to the post on Wahhabism (you can see the edits). Thanks. Abureem 16:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

THANKS Pan for the comments and the objectivity. I did not have a problem with criticism of the article in question, rather it should avoid the neologisms (thanks for teaching me a new word!). Abureem 20:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability

May I suggest that you reconsider the notability tag on TAPESTREA? Though it is still under development, it has already developed a bit of a fan following. Also, an expository article on the software won the Distinguished Paper Award at the International Computer Music Conference (ICMC), 2006 at New Orleans. Kitatik 10:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the tag. I'm still not sure it's notable. Pan Dan 10:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

not native

I think user:4512980355a is not a native speaker see talk:lynotic.

If you think Lynotic is no real language you're wrong. My grandfather and grandmother were native speakers. --Janvanhorn 15:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Lynotic

I think the problems solved... talk:lynotic --Arjanv 18:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Note

An informal note reminding you not to remove substantial content without prior discussion, as at Peter Hurd. DGG 15:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please see WP:BOLD. Good-faith edits rooted in policy, and detailingly explained in edit summaries, don't have to be "discussed." Pan Dan 15:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

PV Ben_Going

pan dan. hi regarding article Ben_Going, i was hoping you could direct me the next process. i put the article up for deletion and now it reached a "non-consensus" ? not to be vague, but i could use general advice and instruction on reviewing all of this. thanks Heideggger 22:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. If you think the article should be deleted, you should wait at least a month or so before you renominate it for deletion. If you just think it needs cleanup, just negotiate with editors on the talk page. What specifically do you think is wrong with the article? Pan Dan 14:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Graham Bekham

Not sure why you bothered editing this article. WP:BLP only applies to real people, and this article is clearly a hoax. exolon 22:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Because there's no such thing as a "clear" hoax. Pan Dan 22:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The picture is of someone else. Neither external link has anything to do with this supposed person and there are zero GHITs for him. If that's not clear enough god knows what is. exolon 22:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it curious that this little exchange is taking up much more time than the amount of time it took me to enforce WP:BLP? Pan Dan 22:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thought of Thomas Aquinas Part I

Ignore that last message - this seems to be someone splitting the article up. I'll try sorting it with them. exolon 22:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure you see why speedy deletion isn't always a good idea even when it's "obvious."

Here's the message I was typing to your first message which you removed. I might as well post it since I took the time to type it:

Relax and give the article's creator a little more time, will ya? Who knows what he's got in mind. Maybe he's got some good stuff that can be merged into the main article on Aquinas. Or maybe the main article is too long.

The fact that there are all these possibilities is a good reason why speedy deletion is not a good idea in this case. Speedy deletion is only for cases where it is clear that the subject is inappropriate and that no content in the article can be used elsewhere. In cases like Thought of Thomas Aquinas Part I, time and perhaps discussion are needed before any action is taken. Please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion if you haven't already. Pan Dan 22:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Responded

I've responded on Talk:Thomas Howarth and Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Thomas_Howarth. Tell me what you think. Excuse my defensiveness, if you interpret it that way, I just take a certain amount of pride in individual articles I've created. See what you think. Bobo. 16:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll check out what you said. Pan Dan 16:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Mohammad Ismail Khan (1953-2006)

I am not copying i provide the detail article about a senior pakistani journalist who was brutally murdered in Islamabad and his murderers are still at large— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.43.217 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your message.

The article is a copy from this webpage. There are two problems with this. First, it is a copy, and this violates Wikipedia:Copyright. This is the reason the content must be removed from Wikipedia as quickly as possible. The second problem is that the webpage http://www.sajaforum.org/2006/12/interview_bob_d.html is not a reliable source, so even if you were to paraphrase it, it cannot be used as a source for a Wikipedia article.

If you wish to write an article on this subject, please find reliable sources, such as newspapers, and write the article using those sources. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Pan Dan 21:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnraisers

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Barnraisers. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. DarkSaber2k 12:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your ill-conceived message. I removed a speedy deletion tag from an article that directly asserted notability by providing a non-trivial 3rd party source whose subject was the same as the subject of the Wikipedia article. Please read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Pan Dan 12:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Done

As requested. Sr13 17:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Gordon the Tramp

Erm ... The list of references (mostly to UK National Newspapers) are currently longer than the article itself .. How much more referenced do you want it ..? ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 17:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I know it's referenced now, but the tag is for future editors of the article. The tag is standard on all articles about living people. Pan Dan 17:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, That was quick though .... ;-) ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 17:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination mistake

Thanks for fixing my "malformed" nomination. I thought I followed the guidelines, but I was unaware of the original discussion to delete the page in 2005.

Anyway, thanks for fixing it!

No problem (although I wouldn't have called it "malformed"--that was User:TenPoundHammer :)) Pan Dan 20:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Spam Mistake

Whoops, sorry. Didn't see your edit, and my edit apparently went over yours. If I had seen it I'd reverted my edit to your tag. Sorry for that. :) -WarthogDemon 20:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Happy patrolling! Pan Dan 20:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)