User talk:DESiegel: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:08, 24 March 2010

Intro

Procedure

This is my talk page. Please add new messages to the bottom of the page, Please sign all msgs with four tildes (like this ~~~~). Click here to start a new topic. DES ^(talk) 03:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will generally preserve all comments, positive or negative, and archive them when the page gets too large. But I may choose to delete vandalism or nonsense. I would generally prefer that other editors not remove anything from my talk page. Thank you for communicating with me. DES ^(talk) 03:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any removals of content from my talk page may be reverted by rollback with or without notice. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I may respond on your talk page, or under your comment here. If i respond here I will notify you with a {{talkback}} template, or a ping, or both, unless you have asked me not to, or have asked editors in general not to so notify you (as some editors do). DES ^(talk) 21:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I have left a comment on your talk page, or on an article talk page, you may respond where i left the comment, or here. If you respond where i left the comment, to keep the thread together, dropping me a note or placing a {{talkback}} or {{tb}} template on this page, or pinging me by including {{U|DESiegel}} in a signed talk page comment will probably mean that I see your comment and respond sooner. Please consider doing so. DES ^(talk) 00:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit the header template (User:DESiegel/TPHdr) used to display these header sections of the talk page unless there is a problem with it -- that template is not a good place to leave messages for me. DES ^(talk) 21:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello DESiegel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 20:21, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Hi there. My wiki interest is editing food pages and you'll see I edit and improve mostly food pages in my time on wiki. I'm currently in a discussion with you and others in relation to the page foodporn. I'd like you to kindly investigate users Hogohit and Praxidicae. An investigation of Special:Contributions/Hogohit proves this is merely a vandalism account (as they just created this account 2 days ago with the sole purpose of deleting/vandalising foodporn and 'food porn'. Further, if you look at Special:Contributions/Praxidicae, this user just makes wholesale edits, speedy deletion requests, and deletes whole slabs of edits and content on multiple pages without any kind of justification or rationale. This is not helpful for new users trying to learn how to be a wiki editor. I think both users should be perma banned for vandalism. Thanks for your time. PS: apologies my 'wiki speak' still needs some work. I'm learning as I go :)

Etiquette Dear DESiegel, Thanks for your comments on my page and on my article. I'm new to entering information on Wikipedia, but I've been an editor for twenty years. Does it really seem appropriate for Ukepat to address a writer in this manner: "OK one more time, with feeling, there are no supervisors here and no one you can talk to by phone. To seek the views of other editors, please open a discussion at Editor assistance requests. – ukexpat (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC) You are missing the point. There is no one to refer you to." I don't find this statement coming from a representative of an organization to be acceptable. Through my own research I found out about the Wikiettiquete page and the Dispute Resolution page. I'm not sure how Ukepat "bent over backwards to help me." His or her comments were subjective and vague, and not until I was several questions in did he provide any examples. I'm not trying to lobby for any outcome here, but to have this kind of behavior condoned by Wikipedia, in effect, and to have his comments even on the dispute page referring to my objection as "ridiculous" is clearly unprofessional. Thanks, Jim--James Cihlar (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case your idea of npov .......

Read this: http://wardchurchill.net/blog/ Also take note that the "American Civil Liberties Union" is backing Churchill Albion moonlight 11:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Escoffee

Mr. Siegel,

You deleted the Escoffee page. However, Escoffee is a legitimate coffee company from Ecuador. You do have pages on other (large) companies. So why not this one. The description was factual, stating when it was founded, what its activities are and so on. I don't understand why this company page was deleted.

Sincerely, Jeromekruft 16:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's good

Before I wrote my previous message I had just had a look at the Ward Churchill main article for the first time in a week or so. It too is very biased. I decided that since 5 days had gone by, Now might be a good time to get the ball rolling on the issues article. And by that I mean seeing to it that those who believe thy are capable of being neutral are informed of Churchills side of things. If every source that backs Churchills side of things is disallowed under one pretext or the other then I will have a better idea of how to proceed. Albion moonlight 23:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THAT IS UNDERSTOOD

If Ward Churchill's blog claims he said this or that it is fair to claim that he did in fact say it. Such evidence can and should be used. Not as facts but as a representations of what he had to say. By quoting or paraphrasing him directly from his website or other sources we can at least make the claim that we made an honest attempt at being neutral . Otherwise we can't. It is really quite that simple. There are editor who have denied him even that much. Albion moonlight 05:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essay

I'd love for you to take a look at it. I've been working on it for several hours, and while I'm not finished, I'm over halfway there, and would love input. Do you have email enabled? I'd rather not post the link here, if you understand, simply because it is not officially published, and I've seen the havoc caused by the TTR page. :) ^Ariel♥Gold 17:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yes I know about that feature, but not everyone does, just to let you know, it is the -2 version, not the original paste of convo from the talk page. I too prefer to do the conversing here when related to Wikipedia, but I just didn't want to get in "trouble" for this essay, ahead of approval/input, hope you understand! And I look forward anxiously to your thoughts and review. ^Ariel♥Gold 17:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frequent refreshing advised

Moonpod DRV

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but is what you're saying in essence that if we cannot tell whether an award is utterly trivial then that uncertainty becomes sufficient assertion of notability to not apply A7? So if an assumption needs to be made, or discretion employed, A7 doesn't apply because the assertion of notability has been made? Carlossuarez46 18:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I will say that there are a bunch of divergent points of view and thanks for the benefits of yours. For a sanity check, if the notability is "contentious" (as such word is used in WP:BLP) would that sway you? I came across one recently at Afd that I might have been tempted to speedy on notability because if the unsourced contentious stuff were removed there was little left asserting notability. But again, "contentious" (no pun intended) is not a settled concept (is being affiliated with a music group that puts out lyrics that would make a sailor blush contentious? If not for a rap singer would it be contentious as applied to an evangelical pastor?) Carlossuarez46 21:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I guess I misphrased it: Assume we have an article with no sources at all, where the sole assertion of notability: "Mr. X performed with band in making their second album." or "Mr. X was a member with group in their second job." Assuming both band and gang are notable, but that the band and album were ones that you wouldn't let grandma hear and the group and job was of the not-quite-legal sort. Reading BLP broadly, either of those unsupported statements is contentious and BLP would say remove them - let's even further assume that after a quick search still no sources can be found (so we've gone an extra step). If the removal of the claim removes the assertion of notability is the article in jeopardy of A7 or should the BLP issue be ignored/deferred and the article prod'ed or afd'ed and let consensus decide whether there is a BLP issue and if so, whether deletion is proper. Carlossuarez46 22:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is not so common, but no so rare to not consider it. Since many of the A7 bios are unsourced it does come up a little more often in their case than in editing articles on ancient cities, tribes, and personages (which I do more than occasionally). Carlossuarez46 22:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting take: granted members of a band known for raunchy lyrics cultivate that image and is not contentious, but until we have a source that says that Joe Blow is indeed a member of that band I don't think we should assume he cultivates that image and that such a claim is indeed contentious as to him until sourced. Carlossuarez46 17:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tay Zonday

Hey, i was wondering if this page could be unlocked so that I can create an article. I have several sources, its not going to be biographical, but will make references to Tay Zonday as a internet meme and as a songwriter, including links to artciles written about him on the internet. The page will be based upon pages for other memes such as Star Wars Kid and Chuck Norris. --Robnubis 13:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Chinese apartheid AfD

Following your recent participation in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30#Allegations of American apartheid, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion note

Hello! Looking over the history of Wikipedia:Template the regulars, I see that all edits other than by its author were (1) typo fixes, (2) adding a merge template, or (3) quickly reverted. The first revision of the page was identical to the version the author requested deletion on (except for one typo fix and one merge template). Hence I've speedied it as author request. Yours, >Radiant< 13:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Just put it back on MFD, then. The page is still a toxic endorsement of incivility and encouragement to escalating behavior, it shouldn't be there. >Radiant< 19:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Template the regulars

Your DRV comments say that the speedy deletion serves no point because you will simply create a new version of this essay. I agree with that assessment and I did not mean to extent my comments to any future incarnation of the essay. I don't, however, agree that the G7 deletion was unfounded. The vast majority of the essay was written by Giggy at the time of the initial request. I also don't think that the DTTR MfD concluded that there is a consensus to keep both articles, only an MfD on the merits of TTR itself would be helpful in defining consensus. I hope you don't mind this response here instead of the DRV. Cheers, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DES...I'm not sure you userfying it was the best idea - since it hadn't really changed since I wrote it, it should probably be in my userspace. But that's your call. In any case, I'd really like to MfD the whole thing - it's doing more damage then good. If G7 doesn't apply, I'd still like to get it deleted some way, so if you don't mind, could I slap an MfD notice on the page? Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 22:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would appreciate if it was sufficiently different to my version - especially since I now disagree with it. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 23:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the original user is mistaken to withdraw their support for this essay, though I don't know what position is being taken up instead, so I don't know that I disagree with them. But I do feel this essay should exist, if only because DTTR exists, and I do disagree with it, and therefore support a response. I don't know how the DRV will go, but if it closes as keep deleted, let me know where you're working on a new version of it. I'd like to contribute to it. FrozenPurpleCube 08:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our project

Just thought I'd let you know that Carcharoth has taken a look, and offered impressions on the talk page. I'm still waiting to hear back from DGG if he has a better way to organize the TOC, but I did add the section about children we spoke about, and thought you could take a look at that. Also, since I'm not really up to speed on who would be good "polar opposites" to invite to comment, I thought maybe you could give some names of those who may be on the very ends of the issue, to take a look and voice their opinions. Hope you had a good weekend, DES! ^Ariel♥Gold 00:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Weiner

Fair enough, but if the author doesn't come up with something more in the next day or two, I'll prod it. Realkyhick 21:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shamrock (comics) copyvio

We got an OTRS complaint on this one; reviewing the article, and the source, though a lot of it has been moderately adjusted or rewritten, I think we're still clearly in violation. If the Marvel Appendix authors complained with a takedown...

I'm going to delete this under the listed copyvio criteria. If you want to do a complete rewrite of the copyvio sections and restore it with those changes, feel free to do so, but please be careful. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 08:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging of Hell Date

Thanks for your comments. It would appear that significant content was added to the page after I had tagged it for Speedy Deletion. I certainly do not consider it a candidate for Speedy Deletion now. Karl2620 11:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Songs from Les Misérables

Hi, you're welcome for the draft I made of Songs from Les Misérables. It took longer than I first expected to prepare it, so I'm glad the work wasn't wasted. I did, of course, intend to influence the outcome of the AfD by preparing something that looked worth keeping.

I've only just realised that you actually moved it from my sandbox. It wasn't the first thing I had drafted in that sandbox, so the article now has a rather strange page history! I don't suppose it happens very often, but you might want to copy & paste if a user does something similar again! Best wishes, Fayenatic london (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't know you you could do that! Very neat. No, I don't need my sandbox history back. It's interesting that my "See draft here" link at the AFD still works. Thanks, Fayenatic london (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lilly Arbor Project

i think the article will stand, but it should be possible to find additional sources from area newspapers referring to the project DGG (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SEE Earth

{{helpme}}

I created user pages for the 7 articles. can u please take a look at them and send me your feedback? Also, i tried to find some sources and links online that relate to the article, but coudnt find much. Is it possible to post the articles as they are now and modify them later on as we get more information?

Thank you ! SeeEarth 23:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles in question are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixindex&from=SeeEarth&namespace=2

I glanced at a couple and the thing that stands out to me is the lack of sources--which you mention. You'll need to have some reliable, independent sources to establish notability or the articles are likely to be deleted. You can try using Google News to find some sources, perhaps. Good luck. --Sopoforic 23:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

{{helpme}} How do i get the coordinates of a wikipedia page article? Thank you SeeEarth 15:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question may mean either "How do I read coordinates?" or "How do I write them?"

Most articles on major cities have the coordinates listed in small print in the upper right-hand corner and/or in the text of the article. See, for example, London, Ontario.

There are several ways to write coordinates into a Wikipedia article. The source code at London, Ontario is {{Coor title d|42.98714|N|81.246268|W}}. For more information, see {{Coor title d}} and other templates in its category. Shalom ^Hello 20:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please check my articles? Thank you

SeeEarth 22:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging of River City Jim

You do realize that following your criteria means that articles about half the videos on YouTube will have to be prodded (and a significant number taken to afd) instead of speedily deleted, right? To me, something that only appears on YouTube qualifies as web content. --NeilN 05:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

template question

I was looking to see if someone had created a "I am going to deny your request to speedy delete X" template because it comes up often enough. And I see that you have {{Template:Speedy-Warn}}. I was wondering if you'd mind if I add at the end: "You are, of course, free to add a {{prod}} notice or nominate the article for deletion at WP:AFD." Just let me know, since it's basically your template I won't be bold. :-) Carlossuarez46 21:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiring about user's identities

(moving from my talk page to yours since you did not reply)

It is generally considered impolite to request users to expose their real-life identities, or to confirm or deny guesses at such identities. Edits such as this in which you imply that confirmation of identity is required for an edit to stand clearly violate policy. The test of an edit is the contents, not the editor. WP:COI (a guideline, not a policy) exists because many people can not edit on subjects in which they are involved with sufficient neutrality. But if a particular edit is in fact neutral, it stands no matter who made it, and if it in fact fails WP:NPOV it should be removed no matter who made it. Demanding to know an editor's identity as a condition of not reverting an edit is simply unacceptable. Please don't do this again. DES ^(talk) 14:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up... though Sethie is a little confused.

Dseer added a link to author Michel Langford's work. Sethie removed that particular link to author, because Sethie felt did not fit in so well with the article. Dseer put it back in responded and said "You may absolutely not remove that link."

The editor then proposed editing an another article in such a way that Michel Langford's worldview and views would be highly represented on a subject in which ML is not considered an expert or has any notability.

Sethie, based this and a number of clues suspected that Dseer was ML.... he read WP:COI which says you cannot insert a link to your own site without discussing it firt. Sethie at first ask, "Are you Michel Langford?" then changed the question to something only ML would know, to protect Dseer's anonimity....

How could Sethie have procceeded differently in accordance with wikipedia policy? Sethie 17:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD AutoReason Updated

Attention spamlist! I've just updated CSD AutoReason to account for the new image deletion page. If you'd just hard refresh (Ctrl+F5 in most browsers), you'll get the new version and be on your way. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave, I was a member of the MSU mahjong group way back in 1983. I was wondering if you may have a copy of the old rules laying about in a digital form that I could have.

If so, please drop me an email (martincavell at yahoo dot com).

Thanks for your time! -Ted Greer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.120.231.2 (talk) 23:33, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Male Porno Articles. I need you help

I wanted to contact you because I remembered how you helped me with kindness against that former admin who was abusing the deletion formula. I think I need your help and support. I got an e mail from an editor asking me to look at the List_of_gay_porn_stars section. These articles are riddled with POV, advertisement and spam. I tried to do a simple prod tag but oh my did I get the thrashing of my life! One told me that I would never succeed in getting the aricles removed under WP:PORNBIO and they were right. All they have to do is supply an award! These subjects are the actual editors of their pages. So, when an editor goes in to try and edit the articles, they jump on them and remove any edits they do not like. The way the WP:PORNBIO is written, all these people have to do is to win an award or be able to write something about themselves in a web page and it can be entered into WP. When you click on the links for these pages, they take you to websites that you either have to agree to enter in on adult content or it takes you to their porno stores. This is a very effective way for them to advertise their webpages and escort services. The only way to get around these people is to put them up for AfD. I need some help here. Do you think you would like to join forces with me to rid WP os some of this crap? Let me know. I certainly could use the support and help. I think we are going to have to approach WP to see if we can rewrite the rules for these porno articles. Junebug52 18:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review discussion notification of Flyaow - you participated in the discussion regarding this deletion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Flyaow. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 137.82.96.26 04:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with my username

Hi, back on July 27, 2007, you helped me with my username, planetmikedotcom (which you flagged as a Bad username), so I asked to be moved into the unused PlanetMike username. You approved that, but now the system won't email me a link so I can reset my password. Thanks for any help you can offer. Mike

Do you get the error that you didn't supply an email? If so, there really isn't anything you can do other than make a new account. - Rjd0060 19:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave an email, but I think in the process of usurping the Planetmike user name, the old email wasn't removed and my address put into the PlanetMike username account? Or the email address is too long (it's 40 characters) for the Wikipedia system to handle? Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.90.84 (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to know why you deleted the Kenopets article and if it is possible for me to re-write it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N3me$i$ (talk • contribs) 20:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nn-warn template

Hello again, DESiegel ... I ran across some of your comments while replying to another thread on Template talk:Nn-warn ... I've recently tweaked the template, and wondered if you had any comments on the latest versions of my deletion warning templates ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 16:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

db-bio template

Hello again, DESiegel ... the issue of using {{Db-bio}} as a "generic" CSD A7 template has surfaced again (on the Twinkle discussion page), and I have just read the history in the talk:Db-bio threads from 2005 ... now that I see how it is "ingrained in the culture", I think I'd better back off and re-think my position vis-a-vis rocking the boat. <Heavy Sigh!> Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 19:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Prod-2

Template:Prod-2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Terraxos (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, DESiegel ... please see this talk page and tell me what you think of my newly created Template:Oldprodfull ... would you use it, or update it if you encountered it?

Also, what are your thoughts on my proposed WP:FLAG-BIO protocol?

Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) _{16:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Patrick Combs

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Patrick Combs, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Patrick Combs

An editor has nominated Patrick Combs, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Combs and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Wells

I added a section to Dawn Wells that reads as follows:

In 1998, fellow Islander Bob Denver was arrested for having a parcel of marijuana delivered to his home. He originally said that the parcel had come from Dawn Wells, but later refused to name her in court, and testified that "some crazy fan must have sent it".^[1]

Wells was arrested on October 18 2007, after a Teton County sheriff's deputy pulled her over after observing her swerve across the fog lines and center lines of State Highway 33 and repeatedly accelerating and slowing down. The officer noted the strong odor of "burning marijuana", and a search of her vehicle produced several partially consumed marijuana cigarettes and several containers of marijuana. Wells was taken into custody after failing a field sobriety test.^[2] According to the Associated Press, she was sentenced on February 29 2008 to five days in jail, fined $410.50, and placed on six months' probation after pleading guilty to one count of reckless driving.^[3]

The section is properly referenced and relevant. Several people including War, FCYTravis, and Cleo123, do not want this included because it is not seen as "positive". This is a POV view.

I request that you ask these people to cease reverting this section which is relevant and factual. It is based on news accounts and court records. Proxy User (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that I posted a notice on the Biography Project's Bulletin Board some time back regarding this user's edits to the Dawn Wells article. [1] Administrator, FCYTravis was kind enough to respond to my posting and has reverted Proxy User's version. Unfortunately, Proxy User just doesn't seem to understand why his revisions violate WP:BLP no matter how many people try to explain it to him. He continues to edit war on the article and has now posted a "warning" on administrstor, FCYTravis' page.[2] If you are familiar with this editor, perhaps you can explain things to him in a way that he'll understand. Cleo123 (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for Mediation, bud Admin FCYTravis, who is a party to the disagreement rejected it. This is improper. A party to the issue should not be able to reject the Mediation request. Proxy User (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		Thank you
		Thank you for releasing the text of your standard GFDL non-compliance letter into the public domain. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

updating a page on your userspace

~~I changed the TTR essay on your userspace to restore some info that you added, and that got reverted by an user, see the reversion of your addition, and my addition of the info.~~

I explain myself, I saw your complain on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Giggy about being reverted, and then I noticed that you had been reverted by the sock of a banned user, and that the information was actually quite good and was according to my experience, so I re-added the information, after making a few changes and discarding a paragraph about strawman arguments. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I looked again to the history to make sure that I hadn't overlooked something, and I saw that you had already introduced an improved version of the reverted information. I restored it back to the state I found it at. Cheers. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag templates

Hello again, DESiegel ...

Well, it looks like {{Flag-article}} and {{Flag-article}} are being embraced and used, as witness the populating of Category:Flagged articles and Category:Flagged editors by Some Other Editors. :-)

BTW, I just activated WP:FLAG-MOVIE, and added Movies as a (Guideline) for the flag templates ... it also made sense to have {{Selected filmography}} populate Category:Flagged articles as well ... do you agree?

Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) _{18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

RTFM pointers for Flag templates

Hello, DESiegel. You have new messages at 151.200.237.53's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) _{00:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Talk:1906 (film)

Deletion review for Talk:1906 (film)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Talk:1906 (film). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —scarecroe (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please return to WikProject Media franchises

Dear DESiegel...You are invited to come back to discuss WikiProject Media franchises. Since you participated in one or more discussions of the project, possibly when it was known as WikiProject Fictional series, I hope to see you return to it. The project needs your participation. Currently there is no activity on the project's talk page about the reorganization which is discouraging. I had great expectations for this project as it touches so many topics but am becoming discouraged. I hope to see you return. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 19:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date Ranges

Since you have given thought to the issue of date ranges in the past, this may be of interest to you ... [3].--Ethelh (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Teratophilia

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Teratophilia. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teratophilia. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth

Howdy- is it against Wikipedia policy to include the date of birth in a biographical article for a living person in the public arena?The Original Historygeek (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't used to be -- indeed it was encouraged provided that the DoB was verifiable. However, some people have noticed that a DoB can be useful in committing identity theft. Therefore, people tended to not list the exact DoB for living people at least in some cases. When the subject publicized his or her own DoB (as on a personal or official web page, for example) I would think it fine to include in a Wikipedia page. Similarly when the person's DoB is already widely available on the net, particularly in the case of a very well known person.

WP:BLP says "Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses—or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them." and "Caution should be exercised with less notable people. With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." DES ^(talk) 17:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this account still active?

I notice DESiegel has not edited since August 2007.

Can anyone confirm whether DES is still active?

I have taken the liberty of archiving all posts prior to August 07 and have added a header box noting this:

I apologize to DES for taking this liberty on his talk page.

I have been mostly inactive, and have done some editing as an IP. I ahve recently been quite active on the ISFDB (see http:www.isdfr.org). DES ^(talk) 17:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(removed talkback templates)

German art just before the Third Reich

re [4] - it is a straight copy of a section of yesterday's lead DYK article, which is not in line with summary style at all. WP:SPLIT has not been followed, and the article is completely pointless. The troll-like creator has a habit of creating articles that are unacknowledged copies or patchworks of other articles, or copyvios. See his talk page, contributions, & the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Variation on a theme. "Sincere" or not, this behaviour is not helpful to the encyclopedia, & I urge you to reconsider your edit. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history, you will see he removed a prod some hours ago. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kurz and Allison

I don't think I'll be retagging it. There wasn't anything supporting the claim when I put up the tags (so the claims credibility was questionable), but the article's creator otherwise has a good history. Since another editor is supportive of it, I'll back out. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UAS Lab

Mr. Siegel,

It looks to me that you have deleted UAS Lab. Your statement says, it is meant for promotional activities. I have several patients who browse for UAS Labs wiki page and don't find one. As this company's DDS probiotics are widely accepted by public, I got interested to create an article on them. It is informative for public to publish some relevant info related to their DDS strain. Although their literatures are little promotional those are the only available sources that I found so far. This company is notable with many newspapers, magazines, news mmedia, Books etc. Kindly understand my request. I have asked in public to incorporate their thoughts so some sections can be improved. Please don't delete this article.

Thank you (User : Gutflora)(Gutflora (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gutflora (talk • contribs) 05:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jock Ruck-Crimes

Hi DE; I've nominated it for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. Cheers, 99.155.206.57 (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Leandro Vieria

Hello DESiegel, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Leandro Vieria - a page you tagged - because: A7: article mentions several competitions in which Vieria won 1st place . Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with martial arts or Brazilian competitions, so you may be right about the (lack of) notability of the competitions. When in doubt, I generally try to keep articles rather than delete them. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Factoryase

Hello. Thanks for your note. As you suggested, I restored Factoryase. Before I deleted the article, I searched for the word using Google and couldn't find any hits for it. I'll ask User:Betaclamp to try to clean it up and add some sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yettaw AfD

Hi DESiegel, since you agree with Kingturtle's arguement in the Yettaw AfD, I just thought I'd show you some responses I've offered KT on his talkpage here: User talk:Kingturtle#Yettaw AfD. Peace! ↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 15:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. & I see your point (/consistency of your viewpoint). Fair enough! :~) ↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 16:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As M.J. Stephey (Dec. 8th Time magazine) said, Yettaw has become "a magnet for international scorn and speculation."↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 21:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That merely proves his notability. DES ^(talk) 22:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel, I made a comment on the "John Yettaw" article's talkpage that basically reponds to your point about notability; and this comment is here: Talk:John Yettaw#I have nominated this article for deletion.... :~) ↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 02:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read it. I don't think it is highly relevant. This page is clearly not constructed with the intent of attacking Yettaw, or anyone else. He was a participant -- a wholly voluntary participant -- in an event that was of literally international significance. Further more, the guideline you cite mentions the possibility of libel, but true statements are never libelous. Neither are inaccurate statements about public figures made without actual malice (an article I worked on, by the way). There may well, as I said above, be an argument for deleting some of the more speculative comments from the article, and doublechecking the sourcing of he rest -- possibly on insisting on multiple sources in many cases. I see no shadow of a reason to delete or merge the article. Frankly i think wikipedians sometimes go overboard in not including so called "negative information" about notable people that has been published by reliable sources. To me this introduces bias and flies in the face of WP:NPOV. DES ^(talk) 05:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note also that so far you seem to be the sole editor who favors deletion, while several have favored retention of the article, possibly with editing. Could it be that your view does not command consensus? DES ^(talk) 05:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UAS Labs

Dear Des,

As per your suggestion, I prepared the UAS Laboratories drafts on my user pages. Please follow the link below to get it. Please let me know which one (out of the two) looks good to you. With your inputs I will continue further. Sorry for minor editorial mistakes such as adding a tag to a reference etc.

Thank you (Gutflora (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

DES ^(talk), 16:36, 22 Dec, 2009

UAS Labs update

Dear Mr. Siegel,

Thanks for the help. I appreciate you for improving the section and fixing the references. Now it looks better. I need some additinal editorial helps. I made a box with the company logo and address on it. But the logo doesn't appear. I don't know why? Please advise? Thanks in advance.

Gutflora(Gutflora (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

UAS Labs-Todays update

Hi Des,

Thanks for the help. I moved the page to UAS Laboratories. I can later edit the sections/add pages to the article. The logo should be OK now without any deletion. Thanks again! (Gutflora (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Des,

I am surprised to see that the article UAS Laboratories is getting a speedy deletion warning again. I followed the procedures and reviewed with you, with the hope that it won't be deleted. There are many reasons why I oppose the deletion. These are:

(1) The company is notable for its DDS-1 L. acidophilus probiotic strain. It holds a patent and trademark for being the first commercial manufacturer of DDS-1 L. acidophilus. Please see the United States Patent (UAS Lab) No. 3,689,640 and United States Trademark Office Reg. No. 1,685,959. I had a hard time in posting a pdf page of this trademark to the article. Much research has been done on L. acidophilus DDS-1 so far. It has been proved in last 30 years that this particular probiotic strain has many health benefits against IBS, chrohn's disease, candida, Indigestion, diarrhea and others. Therefore, public wants to know what this strain is?, how it was discovered?, why it was manufactured?, what is it's health benefits? and who is UAS Laboratories?

(2)The article is in initial stage. The next section would be how the idea to manufacture DDS-1 strain came to mind? - The history and development. Please note that I am not a technical expert in posting articles to wikipedia. Reviewing with the administrator and fixing things will take reasonable amount of time, not just one week. Therefore, please allow us fair amount of time to improve this article.

(3) I agree that it needs references from third party sources. I do have plenty of references from the primary sources for example published books, journals by S. K. Dash ( the founder of the company). Per your suggestion, that's marginal not notable. I might need little more time in collecting those. Finally, deletion of an article takes only a minute, but creation takes a lot of time. For people like me, who have less knowledge on wikipedia, it shocks when I struggle a lot to ceate an article and finally it is deleted.

I would appreciate if you would be kind enough and remove the deletion notice from the main page of the article. Thanks (Gutflora (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Des,

I am extremely thankful for your action! I honor Wikipedia and it's editing policies. I am a neutral person creating this article for public. I have no relation with UAS Laboratories. (Gutflora (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Tagging of Barracuda atomic

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

Tagging of Natalie Bennett

YYou made a fair argument, and have changed my mind. Thanks for the note. -- Matthew Glennon (^T/_C\^D) 01:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI on A7 tag

As an FYI - I did not tag the Poland Central School as an A7 because I felt it was a non-notable school. If you go back and look, the A7 tag was for db-web -- the original article was called Www.polandcs.org and I was judging that version since it focused (barely) on the school's web site and not the school. Thanks. Warrah (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at User_talk:Deon

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

And again — Deon^talk 14:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WKPL (disambiguation)‎

User:Jim1401 added the information on the page, I had previously had it as a disambig. The information is as a hatnote on WPKL which WKPL redirects to. A disambig page is not necessary, hence my CSD for deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have any problem with a move and then a prod. That would work for me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem :) I thought you were done, so I stepped in and did that real quick :) I wanted to trim those entries down a little too, also. Thanks for moving that for me. Merry Christmas...NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:UAS_Laboratories_Logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:UAS_Laboratories_Logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DESiegel. You have new messages at Wifione's talk page.
Message added 10:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Taliban (screenplay)

More sources to verify what? It's a screen play they are pushing and lacks notability as well. Eeekster (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pushing anything. Why is Eeekster determined to eliminate a verifiable document that indisputably accomplished what even a group of paid "think-tankers" failed to provide, and, quoting the FBI directly, due to a "Failure of imagination" Why am I being punished for allowing others to see what is possible with due diligence and hard work? I don't get it.RENGACORP (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Bum

Thanks for looking at my CSD and fixing it all up. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 05:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

( List of ) Alumni, Principals and Teachers of The Rajkumar College,Rajkot- RKCians

Thank for intervention. I am a beginner and possibly the only active Wikipedian alumnus of the Public Boarding School, RKC referred to in link title above. Peding, creation of article about notable alumni, some deceased, attempts are being made through facility as the following link to educate and possibly entice some of the alumni to become Wikipedian in the process of listing and creating related articles and by extension possibly venture into unrelated territory; your continuing assistance may be required; most of upadtes to the school page was by me in last year. Related links are listed in context:

Can a link to ( List of ) Alumni, Principals and Teachers of The Rajkumar College,Rajkot- RKCians be accessed independently- currently it is in redirect to Main page Rajkumar College, Rajkot; Is it appropriate to put a link ( ( List of ) Alumni, Principals and Teachers of The Rajkumar College,Rajkot- RKCians ) for the list page on the school main page at Rajkumar College, Rajkot?

I know how to do above, but all the edits recently were done by an administrator(s) for some purpose and seeking your assistance would be more prudent. Once above can be established either by inserting list page link on main page or changing redirect to at least disambiguation with mention of both page links as above might help. Patelurology2 (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I have inserted the following in the Talk page of ( List of ) Alumni, Principals and Teachers of The Rajkumar College,Rajkot- RKCians...... see below. I hope, this is in order, so that intent will be known to other when objections occur; I already know you know what is being done surrounding this page and related pages and for this, a salute in order.

Forbearance Needed; Alumni Listed are Notables; Besides some In Memoriam, others likely to be Wikipedians promoting Wikipedia culture in Schools

With support from thoughtsLogical, page development for individual notable alumni, many in notable positions in their fields, is on-going and how to start a page is also demonstrated in a link previously on this page ( since de-linked ) to " my space page ". After judging appropriateness to further the cause for progressive creation of pages of notables, if a link ( in history of this page ) can be re-established to my user space, progress for this School page will be significant. This I write, whereas a full page previously written somwhere and transported is welcome, but page written partially is promptly deleted, unless it is done under shield of user space feature and then transported. This feature likely to be used most by our Alumni. Some parts of above were already mentioned, to further this worthy cause, under show and hide feature ( green bar ) to decrease clutter on page.

At the same time, Alumni are to use only Other Alumni category, where notability will be judged and recategorized to appropriate category after a page full of data are available to compile a page possibly under the user space feature which will be detailed in Alumni E -mail circuit; boldness in Wikipedia is espoused and direct entry and edits encouraged, but Alumni E-mail circuit is available where details of notable nominations and information is welcome and encouraged. Become a Wikipedian and promote Wikipdeia in schools starting with your Alma mater.

- - - The following are two blockQuotes from me on the discussion for deletion page re above subject; hoping it is appropriate.

Comment Note many of the "notable alumni" are simply bluelinks because they are piped to a city or name. For instance, Tedder of Portland. tedder (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Hoping this comment is appropriate and allowed Place name used for temporary link for the place which each of those are/were rulers/Kings of the place pending creation of specific page. Patelurology2 (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible Solution from a Beginner Wikipedian Alumnus in Observation: Hoping this comment is appropriate and allowed The page was created to avoid clutter on Main page and further development of individual pages and an instruction page for creation of pages was started under my space feature with intent to speed up and maintain order; listing on main page would be acceptable, if that is the best logical option; if so, a revert to version of prior acceptable date( ? Revision as of 17:54, 13 December 2009 ) could be considered, so that merger is seamless; list was a copy of list on prior version page. See also discussion/talk page of this list page.

Patelurology2 (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Patelurology2 (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Pegher

I'm having trouble understanding why this article was undeleted beyond your comment of "a claim of significance". While it may have been edited to no longer be a direct copy of the artist's official bio, it's barely rephrased and still uncomfortably close to copy written by her agent. At best it's autobiographical spam, at worst it's still a copyvio. While I dont doubt that this person may meet WP:BIO, it seems the best course of action is to delete this article as it stands today and write a new one that meets wikipedia guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

User:Bdfjhkgi

So what happens if someone creates an account named Bdfjhkgi? Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bdfjhkgi Deletion

User:Eagles 247 referred me to you when I wanted the page to be deleted. I accidentally created the page when I mistyped my username. When it said that there was no page under that name, I mad the biggest mistake I have ever made on Wikipedia. I made User:Bdfjhkgi redirect to my user page. Can I delete it if I'm not an administrator. If I can, could you explain how on my talk page? Thank you. Bdfjhkgj (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC):-)[reply]

Deleted as per request. DES ^(talk) 16:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Patelurology2 - see Prior section (list of) Alumni of Rajkumar College, Rajkot.... two additions

From Patelurology2 - see Prior section (list of) Alumni of Rajkumar College, Rajkot.... two additions Happy New Year

- Also see Userpage for creation of Alumni pages at

User:Patelurology2/Article Preparation page for Alumni of Rajkumar College, Rajkot.

- Had started sometime ago, but just completed frame work where more info and ultimately someday full page at least some of the Alumni may be a reality;co-operative efforts by other other Alumni may be forth-coming; hoping this might make things easier for input from others who would be beginners.

The list page was started to avoid chaos; either way should be able to work through the above Userpage feature.

Patelurology2 (talk) 06:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

I am interested in becoming an administrator. What do I to to get nominated? Gigogag (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I.C.

I see you must be on vacation! Oh, well. I remember when I used to never check my talk page. I was worse at it than DESiegel. MUCH WORSE!!! Gigogag (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Proceedings for Rajkumar College List page- also see other two sections above

Your consel needed; the following summation created. Should I send a copy to all on the deltion proceedings?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/( List of ) Alumni, Principals and Teachers of The Rajkumar College,Rajkot- RKCians

Admin Comment Note many of the "notable alumni" are simply bluelinks because they are piped to a city or name. For instance, Tedder of Portland. tedder (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- My Comment: Hoping this comment is appropriate and allowed Place name used for temporary link for the place which each of those are/were rulers/Kings of the place pending creation of specific page.

....while numerous people in it are apparently notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, this is a rather trivial article and it would be more logical to create a Rajkumar College Alumni category instead, into which the relevant people can be added. KaySL (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- My comment: Agree with title Rajkumar College Alumni ( category ).

Merge any missing notable alumni and list of principals back to Rajkumar College, Rajkot. The red linked people should not be merged. TerriersFan (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- My comment: Agree, red linked notables not be merged. This page was created to avoid the clutter on the main page of The Rajkumar College, Rajkot; page created after at least four pages were started under my Usepage feature. On starting of deletion proceedings other pages were started at same location; community effort will be largely by the Alumni; discussion mode on talk page will need to be used and the alumni will be informed about other instructional matters through talk page as well as Alumni E-mailgroup circuit.

...if the college is notable enough for an article here -- and I think it is -- then a list of notable and somewhat notable alumni is a reasonable extension of that article. The page could be improved but I see no need to delete it. DES (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- My comment: Improvements are being attempted to this page around general aspects of Alumni; intent for creation of this page was to separate the list from page save the most notable category which righly has been left by the first Admin on main page, so that clutter can be avoided and also link to page preparation page under my userspace can be established; I infer that the latter cannot be linked as per guidelines?;it was de-linked by the first Admin. Anyway, Alumni capable of completion of these page will now have a started page ready to input; my first attempt months ago to start first page was met with Auto-deletion, then the Userspace feature came to attention; upto that time all the material gathered was somewhere else; casting a page gives avenue to completion someday; not all likely to be completed soon; inertia ruleth supreme and current limited manpower in background further help from all the Alumni will be needed considering Alumni In Memoriam; institution is 130 years old.
See also talk pages of college and the list page for recent postings regarding above.

Patelurology2 (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DESiegel. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/( List of ) Alumni, Principals and Teachers of The Rajkumar College,Rajkot- RKCians.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Patelurology2 (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you...

that the John Yettaw material needs to be more carefully presented. (See my reply to a comment of yours about this subject, here....)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 13:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royall Advertising

What do you think is the best course of action for the article? -Reconsider! 10:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I originally considered adding a PROD notice to the article, but with the recent addition of third party references, I think that it may meet the bare minimum of notability. Attempted to clean it up, but maybe PROD is still the best option. -Reconsider! 11:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In view of your expertise

on reconciling claims of defamation with allegedly problematic sourcing with concern a subject of a BLP, I thought I'd throw you a link to the discussion I have started on the BLP noticeboard: JohnYettaw on "John Yettaw".↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 19:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!!

Hi and Happy New year !! This is my first time on Wikipedia and I am very disappointed to see the results ... in It Girls Documentary there were many many many writeups !! I don't really understand why you have chosen the two most negative things ever written and selected them to be indicative of the film . It Girls is a very positive documentary and the two items you selected out of hundreds were written in a very meanspirited way , Shouldn't Wikipedia be balanced and thoughtful. It Girls has been around since 2002 and never been posted on Wikipedia ... I don't understand the complete negativity of your additions or why you would insist on portraying a documentary that you have likely not seen with such an instantly negative choice ?? Not a great first experience here ... If you want to post writeups and interviews you might want to take the time and read all the writeups and either post them all or none or a few that are truly and generally representative of a film that took many years to create ... Thanks for your time ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkyellow (talk • contribs) 03:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your offer!! Actually It Girls was shown on television seven years ago and there were not really reviews as it was a tv event on cable and not a film for the movie theatres ... there were mostly interviews, gossip, and thoughts. The chosen writeups you have are not by reviewers but by gossip columnists ( Roger Friedman was an entertaiment Gossip columnist at Fox online ) and the NY Times writer is also a style/fashion writer not a film reviewer and this is a onetime article that appeared in the fashion section because her sister was considered an "it girl" ... there were many thoughts in all directions at that time because although the film was shot before Sept 11 it was released just after and the people's consciousness at that time was heightened ... most articles were light and funny and gossipy about It Girls ... those two chosen just happen to be quite meanspirited and not indicative of that moment or spirit of the film and therefore show a light that didn't exist then ...The CNN transcript is the complete interview ... Also I believe that there were also many articles in print and not on the internet ... Thanks so much!! Also thanks again but the new selections are not reviews but also articles that appeared in the gossip column of WWD ... Is gossip really a critical review of the film ?? It Girls was a sweet light movie for television and was never seriously reviewed so I have a problem with the heading Critical Response ... Maybe if you want to call it gossip response ?? Also there were several thoughtful interviews done ... why not post those ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkyellow (talk • contribs) 16:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also this was sent to the other reviewer but I never really got a satisfactory response !! Hi and Happy New Year !! This is my first time on Wikipedia and I'm just wondering why ?? and for what reason ?? your comment " 03:39, 9 January 2010 ArglebargleIV (talk | contribs) (1,747 bytes) (removing peacock terms) " was tweeted onto the internet to appear immediately after a search ?? Is this normal and common for each wikipedia correction or opinions to be tweeted and to stay on the internet forever ?? If that is true than it seems like a very invasive process ... If this is not true than I'm hoping that you can remove this tweet as it is an unfair item to come up at the top of any internet search !!! Thanks !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkyellow (talk • contribs) Can that tweet be removed ... Seems like an invasion of privacy !!! Thanks so much !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkyellow (talk • contribs) 17:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Tides Of Time

Regarding your deletion of The Tides Of Time. I have enough proof for you with regards to reviews, etc. Can you help me please? I have released an album. The article (posted by me under 'Magiko'). You seem to question my "notability": I have published articles, given concerts, been on radio and television worldwide and have now released a CD with my own music as well. You will also find my name in the 'International Who's Who of Music' (Classical). If that is not "notable" enough I don't understand Wikipedia rules anymore. In any case, I am not on any type of "ego" or "vanity"trip here. But many people always ask me why I am not on Wikipedia. I usually respond because I am not "notable" enough - something that usually causes some amusement. I truly hope someone would like to take on my case and help me solve this predicament. I have seen people included in Wikipedia that are truly irrelevant. Hence, it is really difficult to understand why you are banning my biography and work from it. In any case, I would really appreciate someone independent and impartial to help me. I am here attaching some files as proof. I hope this will help to reinstall my original entry.

Thank you. Magiko (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your understanding and help. The Observer article is indeed from the Hastings Observer from 11.12.09 and the review was written by critic Rob Alderson on 18.12.2009 (same Observer) as you mentioned. I have added also some reviews (below) from German newspapers and magazines reviewing my music on my composition and performances with Frieder Noegge on our program entitled: Der 'Satierkreis'. Please let me know if you need more materials (although you can find more on my official website as well). Thanks a lot again for all your help. It is much appreciated. Magiko (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot: my official website is polopiatti.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magiko (talk • contribs) 20:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three more links for you here. Sorry for "bombarding" you with so much info but I am determined to prove that I am not a liar. Many thanks again for all your help DESiegel. It is indeed very much appreciated. Magiko (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Some of my works at the German National Library in Berlin: German National Library

2. My recent album registered and archived at the British Library Sound Archive: [Search the British Library Sound Archive]

3. Entry at Hastings Borough Council Official Website (with photo) Hastings Council Official Releases -

HI DESiegel, I wrote to you but don't know if you've received my message. In short, Airplaneman has decided to become my Mentor (I want to avoid any more mistakes). Is it alright with you if I continue sending my materials to him now or to you directly? Many thanks. Magiko (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick question, please: how do I send you (and where to?) the files you need to approve specific quotes in my article? (such as publications ISBN numbers, photocopies of articles, links to relevant websites, etc.)? Do I include them in the article itself for everyone to see or shall I send them to you for approval first? Magiko (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

socialtext

why is this descriptive and not spam? can you please look at blogtronix and tell me what the differences are that make blogtronix inappropriate and socialtext appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elimccargar (talk • contribs) 06:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

blogtronix was tagged not as spam but as a recreation of an article deleted by consensus in an AfD, largely for lack of notability, which is not primarily a speedy delete issue. And it is significantly changed since the fD in 2006, so i just removed the speedy delete tag from it also. That said, the argument WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that "X should be deleted because Y was, or X should not be deleted because Y hasn't been" rarely works on Wikipedia, It seems logical, but Wikipedia's deletion systems are not systematic enough for it to apply -- the reason often is simply "No one nominated that yet", and issues like "promotional" are judgment calls. DES ^(talk) 07:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SEEBURGER revision

I plan to rewrite my SEEBURGER article submission later today. Thank you for clarifying why it was removed. I will put it in my own words. I hope that once the article is accepted, it will be built upon by users of their solutions.Shockleyj (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but do remember our conflict of interest guideline. You may want to consider a Userspace draft. DES ^(talk) 03:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A thanks

Hello. Thanks for deleting/moving the last couple pages of Portia, Portia (disambiguation), etc. to finish up the project I started. Now, on to revise all pages that link to the disambig page! –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 02:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you are welcome. DES ^(talk) 02:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biscuit and Biscuit (bread)

Can you please read this discussion on the talkpage of the WP:Food & Drink project, re language confusion. I am just putting in place the discussion there held, creating a series of suitable sub articles to stop the grand language confusion. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the discussion you liked to on my talk page. Indeed you will Find that I posted to it. Clearing up the category confusiuon seems good to me, although I am not sure that I agree with the solution suggested. Some of the stubs you are creating seem like good ideas to me, and the text you have added to Biscuit and the text that was in Biscuit (bread) when i last looked at that article (some hours ago) generally seem to me to be good text that should stay in Wikipedia. But I am not convinced that having Biscuit and Biscuit (bread) as separate articles is a good idea. Of course I am only one editor, and the matter should be settled by consensus, on talk:Biscuit, in accord with the advice of WP:MERGE that merge discussions should usually be on the talk page of the proposed target page. I remain open to arguments for separate articles, and i hope everyone in the discussion will be open to considering the reasons put foreward by other editors. DES ^(talk) 22:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems: the old page mashed a number of edible things called biscuit into one page, resulting in reader confusion; secondly, as I have undertaken the exercise, it is fairly obvious that the individual items mashed into the old page were under developed - the article on Biscuits and gravy which I have added to currently lacks references. At some point the page would have got to big and broken out into sub-articles. There was a discussion which you could have taken part in. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States Antarctic Territory

Hi. You removed the speedy tag from this article, but I have nonetheless speedied it WP:CSD#G3 as a blatant hoax. I wouldn't do that unless the evidence was very solid, but to explain why I think it is, here is the evidence I started to gather for an AfD:

The document you referenced says only that "Seven nations (Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and the U.K.) assert claims to territorial sovereignty over parts of Antarctica... The United States, along with Russia and others active in Antarctica, reject claims and assert the right of access to all areas of Antarctica for peaceful purposes." It explicitly does not make a claim on behalf of the US. It only says that "the United States has a solid basis of claim" - in other words, reserves the right to make one.

This document says that the policy of making no territorial claim goes back to 1924. So though Byrd and Ellsworth made such claims, they were not supported by the US government.

Google Books doesn't know about his reference: "History of the United States Trust Territory of Marie Byrd Land and Ellsworth Land Antarctica. Lulu Press (2009)". Lulu Press is a self-publisher.

Up to this point, there might be a case that enough research was needed that the hoax was not blatant; but this document cited as a reference from the article, purporting to be a 2008 resolution "Agreed to by the Congress of Marie Byrd Land and Ellsworth Land Antarctica" and with a picture of "Governor Daniel Izzo", puts the lid on it. There might have been a tenuous basis for an article about the Byrd/Ellsworth claims, if there wasn't evidence that the U.S. had already established a policy of no claim; but a current territory with a Congress and this guy as Governor is fantasy, and we shouldn't support it.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - it's worth skimming on down through the Articles of Confederation document: you'll find that THE DIRECTOR OF MARIE BYRD LAND AND ELLSWORTH LAND ANTARCTICA PATENT OFFICE (Dr Dan Izzo) has granted a patent to the Reverend Daniel Robert Izzo for a "Resurrection Burial Tomb and Resurrection Ship" which "provides people with power and security from death". JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:John Yettaw

Hi, there is a discussion about converting the subject article into a redirect to the incident page. You have been a prominent editor on the article and I would like to solicit your input.--Jarhed (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Ryan of Good Counsel

DESiegel, I do not agree that the statements you quoted are assertions of significance. First, the article text does not indicate the sport this person plays. Second, after looking at the infobox and seeing that this person is a camogie player, a sport played almost exclusively in Ireland, I feel it is absurd to consider any current individual player to be significant from a worldwide standpoint. Third, the article was one of several created in a short period of time by the same author User:Gearoid69, about various current camogie players, many of which were tagged for speedy deletion, and not just by me. While I AGF, it struck me a spam campaign. For the record, I left a message at gearoid69's talk page suggesting that they focus their efforts differently, such as consolidating information from the articles they had added into articles about camogie teams, tournaments, etc, and to expand the camogie article itself. Regards, RadManCF (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read the definition of spamming, and I agree that I had misunderstood it, but I would also point to WP:NOT, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information. However, I am not saying these individuals should not be covered on wikipedia, just that the level of coverage being given is excessive based on the limited popularity of their sport. I never said that I doubted good faith in this case. As to my CSD tagging, I am unaware of consensus against a "when in doubt, use the CSD tag and let the Admins sort it out" approach, although if there is, please let me know. With regards to the question of whether we should include articles on current camogie players, my feeling is that they should be consolidated into one article. Perhaps we should start an rfc on this. I apologize if my actions have been offensive in any way. Regards, RadManCF (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification on CSD. With regards to WP:ATHLETE, the relevant section reads "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." I would emphasize "usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships". You mentioned that the highest level of competition for camogie is the All-Ireland competions. I would like to point out that the NCAA Division III National Football Championship is the highest level of competition for NCAA division III football players. As of yet, I have not found any articles on div III football players, even though they participate at the highest level of their sport. Given the status of div III within the NCAA, I see no problem with this. I see camogie players as having the same status. Giving teams their own articles makes perfect sense. So would giving notable players their own sections in the appropriate articles. Regards, RadManCF (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadManCF (talk • contribs)

The take I had on WP:ATHLETE was that if it was not represented at the Olympics (or at an international level), then it generally is not worthy of inclusion. Also, I brought up NCAA div III football because it struck me as being similar in stature. Also, since the participants of div III football operate under diferent rules than participants of div I, div II, and the NFL, I would argue that the analogy is valid, as differing rules can greatly affect gameplay (most notably the designated hitter rule in the AL). Regards, RadManCF (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but regardless, this seems like an excessive level of coverage for us to give a subject that is not likely IMO to interest many people outside of Ireland. On the Gaelic Wikipedia, I would not object to these articles. To clarify my position, my objection in this case is that we have so many of these articles, and would be open to keeping articles on players who are extremely notable, such as record holders, historical players, etc. With regards to the GNG, recall that the guideline tag reads "though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I feel that this case is one of those exceptions. Regards, RadManCF (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FEED

Thanks for helping out here, it will really help speed things up! – ukexpat (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hey...

Just noticed you'd returned. You probably don't remember me, but you're the first admin I really dealt with here, in a contretemps over some articles about municipal elections (my username at the time was Sarcasticidealist); you made a good impression, though we were on opposite sides. Anyway, I'm an arbitrator now, and I just wanted to thank you for not chasing me away. Steve Smith (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx

Hi, just saying thanks for the feedback on my draft, Im tryin to figer out how to use this, its like learning html again! It might take me some time, but with your help i'l hopefully figer it out. cheers.

Mike n jack (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletions and restorations

Please note that, although Rdm2376 may have been unseemingly precipitous in deleting all those BLP articles on the grounds that they were unsourced, that is not the only reason that such articles are deleted.

I restored a bunch of them and set out to provide proper sources myself.

For one of them, I realized it was unverifiable. I could find no evidence that it was real. There was nothing to support any of the assertions made therein. Google has many hits for the name of the author provided, but it seems to be a common phrase: there's a lot of social networking stuff, and some wikimirrors... but nothing else that I could find. That's why I deleted it. Unverifiable. DS (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I've managed to find some stuff. "(X), a medical doctor and newspaper columnist, is also a poet and playwright. He was recently Lagos State Chairman of the Association of Nigerian Authors (ANA)" - so I guess he does exist. Is that notability, though? DS (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It probably isn't notability, and a specific WP:PROD on the grounds of non-notability would not be unreasonable in my view, or an AfD if you'd like more eyes to check. It might be argued that the chairmanship was enough for notability, but I think i would disagree unless there was some coverage. OTOH, content from Lagos might be less likely to be online so i would give this more leeway than if it were "California State chairman of the Association of American Authors". (debating that kind of issue is one reason for AfD.) But in any case it isn't a speedy delete. My objections are that in mass-deleting anything tagged as an unsourced BLP, Rdm2376 was deleting perfectly valid and sourceable articles with no obvious problems, no attempt to find sources, and no one else's eyes on his deletions. i never objected to individual prods or AfDs of articles for which sources can't be found after reasonable searches, and I don't object now. I won't even object to a policy change that requires sources within a reasonable time (say 2 months) for new BLPs, and incubates them if such sources are not provided. DES ^(talk) 17:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. He deleted it, I restored it, I searched for info, I couldn't find info, I re-deleted it as unverifiable, then you restored it as an out-of-process deletion (which I think was in reaction to the first deletion). (Oh, and while I have your attention - if you come on IRC, I have an APL joke for you.) DS (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, i missed that, sorry. Yes i was reacting to the initial deletion. I would still say that prod, not a speedy deletion, should be used: "Unverifiable" is not one of the WP:CSD, nor should it be, IMO. i will look at it again.

I don't do IRC. But feel free to post such a joke here, or email it -- my Wikipedia email feature is active. I wan you I've heard, and told, a lot of APL jokes over the years. DES ^(talk) 17:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are apparently referring to Tolu Ajayi. Nine of his books are listed in worldcat, a very useful place to search for basic info on an author. The two that I have checked so far are both held by the NY Public library and several other major libraries, so anyone who visits one of those libraries or uses inter-library loan can at least source to an "about the author" section. In short this was not unverifiable, merely unverified. I have restored sicn your stated reason for deletion does not apply, and am adding source notes. DES ^(talk) 17:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Thanks for your good work on Tolu Ajayi Colonel Warden (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of Kevin

Is officially wheel-warring. Undo it now. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't, I warned him, on his talk page, that if he continued to make disruptive deletions against consensus after he was unblocked, i would block again. There is no consensus for these deletions -- some editors approve, but the discussion at WT:CSD shows that editors disapprove, by roughly 3 to 1 (and the more recent comments by much more than that) of such shoot-on-sight deletions. I am not undoing the previous unblock -- I am blocking for continuing disruption that occurred after the unblock, and after specific warnings. This is well within WP:BLOCK, and furthermore the lack of consensus to support these deletions, indeed I think i can say the consensus to oppose them, justifies a block. DES ^(talk) 02:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point. WP:ADMIN says Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another admin, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is wheel warring. Ask ArbCom for an injunction to support the block, if you're sure you are right. ++Lar: t/c 02:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but I see how it could be taken that way. I have therefore unblocked, after having requested such an injunction from the ArbCom in my statement. DES ^(talk) 03:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ++Lar: t/c 03:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#BLP_deletions. Thank you. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement says that I was involved in unblocking Rdm2736. This is false; please revise. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My error, now revised. DES ^(talk) 03:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Not to be a pedantic son-of-a-bitch, but block logs are pretty much forever, and it appears you're nearly deliberately trying to riddle the logs with misspellings. Please be more careful. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you it was not intentional. The firefox spellchecker doesn't seem to work within the block reason windows, i should have double checked. I am a poor typist I fear. DES ^(talk) 03:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a Firefox user. Nice. :-) This explains how to enable spell checking in other text inputs, if you're interested. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		The Rescue Barnstar 3 - to be awarded to people who rescue articles from deletion or assist in identifying and rescuing articles. This can be independent of or in cooperation with the Article Rescue Squadron. This barnstar is awarded to DESiegel for his rescue of several BLP articles which were disruptively deleted. You are a real asset to the project, thank you for your efforts, we truly need more editors like you to build the project. Ikip 06:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

Much appreciate your feedback on the Pacific Buddhist Academy page. It helped me improve it quite a bit, and prodded loose some ideas for other fixes as well. Thanks again, Kawiki808 (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. it is now looking good, IMO. I took the liberty of editing it to use "List-defined References as explained in Help:Footnote. This puts the detailed reference data into a list at the end of the article. Since it means that the references are named, it almost automatically means that multiple uses of the same reference are properly grouped.

While the Curriculum and Campus sections could use some references, i think this is ready to go live. Do you know how to move this to the main article space? DES ^(talk) 03:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I managed to take it live, and restored the logo as well! Mahalo again for your help on this. Kawiki808 (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kiichiro Hurukawa

~~Excuse me, but what exactly did you mean by "now sourced" here? Misleading edit summaries are not appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

I apologize. I'll assume good faith that it was an error. I corrected it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My error. I was inserting the same source in the pages of a number of restored articles about astronomers who have discovered asteroids, in a series of parallel edits. I apparently failed to hit the paste key on this one. I should have double checked. I have now inserted the source I had intended to insert previously. DES ^(talk) 06:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I saw from your history what was going on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For protecting content. A Nobody^{My talk} 18:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion complaint moved from talk page header: University of N&Z West

I am a professor at University of N&Z West, there is no violation of copyright. Please put the wikipage back "University of N&Z West" 72.21.133.167 (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the University of N&Z West article on 00:55, 12 January 2010. At that time (I have just checked the version as it was when I deleted it) It consisted largely of text directly copied from the http://www.unzwest.com/about_unzw.php page. Specifically the first paragraph was copied with minor alterations, the section "Community Engagement" was copied exactly, as were the first two paragraphs of "Achieving Regional and Global Impact". the source web page carries the notice "UNZW © 2009". As indicated in our copyright policy such contributions are not acceptable unless the copyright holder releases them under a free license, which as far as I know has not been done in this case.

Moreover, even had there been no copyright issue, the page as it stood was far too promotional for a Wikipedia article. Neither of these things would prevent a valid article being written, but the text I deleted was not such an article.

Since I deleted the page it has been recreated and deleted twice more, the last time after this discussion. Unless the issues raised there are dealt with, this article is not at all likely to be undeleted. DES ^(talk) 21:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Mary Geaney

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mary Geaney. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Geaney. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I appreciated your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, which will determine whether the community will delete 50,000 articles created by 17,400 editors, most new editors. Ikip 01:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No barnstar from me, only a swift trout!

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Unsourced BLP's are against policy and their deletion is much deserved. Try not to get to over excited with the block tools next time when someone acts outside the square. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Therapy Problems

To: DESiegel

Thank you for cleaning up wikipedia of spam, but I must ask you to reverse your speedy deletion of Drug Therapy Problems. This section actually can not be reworded because it is technical information that is defined by those exact phrases. I listed one copyrighted source as an example that I didn't just pull it out of my hat, but in fact I could list 100's of sources. This is a very important topic because it correlates to many other disciplines related to pharmacy and drug therapy. One author does not hold copyright to these definitions as they are national guidelines that are then talked about in vast medical literature specifically pharmacy related. comment added by speedymarathon (speedymarathon) Speedymarathon (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)speedymarathon[reply]

See reply on User talk:Speedymarathon. DES ^(talk) 16:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drug therapy problems

Hi. You speedied this article as a copyvio of http://www.molinu.org/drug_therapy_problems, which it now turns out is a Wikipedia mirror. I've restored and userfied it for the author to work on. Just thought I'd let you know in case you come across the site again. Cheers! Olaf Davis (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback#17_Bis EdGilmour (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colescott article

Thank you for your input on the new article, Warrington Colescott. I made several changes, and I believe I addressed all your concerns by either deleting those sentences you felt were statements of fact, or adding more references. I believe we can now remove the tags alerting the reader to "uncited opinion" and "original research." Shall I go ahead and remove those, or can only administrators do so?

Thank you for your time and advice. Barcham (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion invitation

Click here to
automatically
add this project
to your
watchlist

Hi DESiegel, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing.

These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.

Please help us:

>> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

(refactored template)

It was my bad that the discussion appeared to be closed. Per LAR's input I have changed the pagename to broaden the scope of the discussion. And rather than a POV fork, I wanted the discussion to focus on solutions, rather than recriminations as at the RFC. Please reconsider sharing your valuable input. thank you. Ikip 22:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting your help

I have been working at the Draft article ('Polo Piatti') as previously agreed. I would be very grateful if you could have a look at it now and let me know if the article is going in the right direction? I'd just like to know that I'm working in the right way before I continue? Many thanks for your help. Magiko (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help

Your help is very much appreciated. I don't know if I understand exactly all what you mean but I will try my best. The examples of other composers that you suggested will be a great help. I will be in touch when I have advanced a bit more. Thanks again. Magiko (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. DES ^(talk) 19:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help

Thank you for your valuable feedback on the Let's Adopt article. I have made some of the changes you suggested, and I am still working on the rest. I might have to bother you one more time once I am done. Thank you so much. Retinue (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

I was looking at [5] and I wanted to know why you thought it was appropriate to source the article to a blog and to a commercial website selling crests? Considering those are the only sources for the article, they fail WP:BLPSPS and our sourcing standard in general. MBisanz ^talk 07:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although a blog in form, http://deathby1000papercuts.blogspot.com/ appears to be sponsored by Parade Magazine, and under its editorial control. WP:RS says "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." I took this to fall under that principle. Perhaps I was mistaken. As to the crest site, http://www.family-crests.com/family-crest-coat-of-arms/on-this-day/february-29.html does not appear to be "self-published". I know of no rule or guideline tht excludes by commercial firms, and I see no reason why their commercial interests would lead them to be biased on this subject. It may not be the best source in the world, but for the relatively non-contentious fact that this person exists and has a particular profession, it seems a reasonable source to me. DES ^(talk) 15:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see the blog is sponsored by Parade Magazine. I see not evidence of the usual level of editorial control expected by a professional writer (no "about" page, no contact link, no copyright notice). And the crests website would be excluded from the BLP under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources' promotional nature clause since it is a self-published website with the intent of getting people to buy its services, which calls into question the veracity of its information. These kinds of sources, as the only source for a BLP, just don't work. MBisanz ^talk 15:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the blog's home page, and saw an "about" link, clicked on it, and was taken to the Parade site. This was minutes ago, before I wrote the above. However, i just tried this again and found no such link. Perhaps it was only a transient advertising link. I may have been mistaken on this source. I did find the subject's personal web page, and added it for an external link. This would be sufficient to source basic facts like DoB. However, the search i just did suggests that this person, whether sourced or not, is probably not notable, because I could not find any other significant online sources beyond Wikipedia mirrors. I am going to Prod the page, and if anyone can establish notability, that will automatically mean that better sources are found. DES ^(talk) 15:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you went to AfD, making a prod moot. I have commented. DES ^(talk) 15:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, good thanks for looking at it again and clarifying. MBisanz ^talk 17:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might have been a "sponsered by" link that i took for editorial endorsement and was actually merely an and. I should have double checked. Mind you, I think the almost absolute rule against blogs is sometimes a mistake, but it has consensus and I intend to comply -- and usually it is a good idea to avoid blogs as sources in any case. DES ^(talk) 19:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Samwb123/Gotcha

See his talk page; I suggested he tag it and the MfD can then close. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I should have taken the time to look further and found your comment in the MfD. FWIW, the urge for expediency was, in part, driven by this discussion:

User talk:Amorymeltzer#Wikipedia:Gotcha

Pleased to have met you; I've seen your sig about a few times, but don't believe we've much interacted. Cheers, Jack Merridew (aka David) 07:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more: I just visited your user page; APL was one of the first programing languages I used (on a 5110) and I've long forgotten most of it. I also went and read process is important and found it interesting. I can see how it led to your view on the db-u1. I know I'm inclined to expeditious action but the essay makes a good case for mostly going by the book. I'll marinate on it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qicks

Dude, no Google hits for either of the game's titles, and definitely no connection to either Don Johnson or Tim Curry. A few quick Google searches hardly qualify as extensive research, but if the subject doesn't appear in said searches, the hoax seems pretty damn blatant to me. C1k3 (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did such a great job

cleaning up a mess that I left last night that I thought I'd try you again. Some vandal at Jemez Pueblo, New Mexico posted a name and a phone number there. It was removed pretty quickly by another editor but I am wondering if it is possible to remove it from the history too? The number looks like it might be fake, but the area code looks right, and just to be on the safe side . . .... what do you think? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again and hopefully I will not have to make a habit of this. Carptrash (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of TeamSupport

Mr. Siegel,

In reference to the speedy deletion of the TeamSupport page (User_talk:JohnsonRC), I would like it restored back to my userspace so I may edit and resubmit it.

What is the process for resubmission?

Thanks! Robert

JohnsonRC (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of Women in Construction

Hi, DESiegel,

The article had almost no information in it. Rather than undeleting, please feel free to re-create the article, but please add some information that will satisfy notability requirements, preferably by adding information and references. If it doesn't have that, it's likely to get deleted again. The sparse info that was deleted follows:

The National Association of Women in Construction (NAWIC) is an International association that promotes and 
supports the advancement and employment of women in the construction industry.

==External Links==
* [http://www.nawic.org Official Website]

Thanks, and happy editing! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martin-In-The-Fields, Frederick

Sorry, looks like I used the wrong reason for speedy deletion but I'm not sure what I should have used instead. Martin-In-The-Fields, Frederick is the same person as Frederick Martin-Del-Campo which is currently being discussed for deletion. The user Snoobula copied the text he/she used over from Frederick Martin-Del-Camp to the new page he/she created "Martin-In-The-Fields, Frederick" I guess to preserve the biography even if the original gets deleted. Bfootdav (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect speedy declined

Hi! Please take a look here: User talk:Nancy#Declining redirects. Thanks! -- Basilicofresco (msg) 08:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck you

Ты педик — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.176.10.141 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no shame. I wrote that you're gay --178.176.10.141 (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens i'm not gay, but do not think it shameful to be so. But many people do think this is insulting, so do not post such comments on Wikipedia. Doing so is a reason for blocking a user. DES ^(talk) 17:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old comma redirects

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

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Redirects with trailing commas. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Theta Omega Fraternity

Hello. Thank you for your message. I agree that Chi Theta Omega Fraternity is a candidate for A7 deletion. When I first read the article, I thought the Speedy tag was going to be A7. I'm going to nominate it now. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DES ^(talk) 01:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DESiegel. You have new messages at IBen's talk page.
Message added 21:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

iBen^talk/_contribs 21:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JATRI-Journalism Training and Research Initiative → Journalism Training and Research Initiative

He DESiegel, I wonder if you'd reconsider declining my db-r3 on this redirect. You're right that "someone might search on the acronym," but I had already created JATRI → Journalism Training and Research Initiative for that purpose. Thanks— Glenfarclas (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and have deleted under R3. DES ^(talk) 16:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and also re Arctic Cape. Yeah, I should have added that myself, I think I got sidetracked trying to figure out where the heck the AfD disappeared to. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome. DES ^(talk) 20:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Warrington Colescott

On February 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Warrington Colescott, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Kalamazoo Manufacturing Company

On February 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kalamazoo Manufacturing Company, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Twitch Film

No problem, your work looks good. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barry John Walsh

Perhaps you can help me understand why he is notable? Is All-Ireland Senior Football Championship a professional or amateur contest? CTJF83 chat 00:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that he was notable. "claim of significance" is a significantly lower bar than notability. So far as I can see, the event that he won (was on the winning team of) was an amateur event at the national level, comparable to the Rose bowl, perhaps. That may not alone make him notable, but it means that there is a chance that there was enough coverage to establish notability, a large enough chance that any deletion should be given more time for editors to find references, and at least the possibility of wider discussion. If you think this article should be deleted, prod it or put it up for WP:AFD. Note that WP:CSD#A7 says "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. ... If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion." DES ^(talk) 01:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you, CTJF83 chat 02:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firewall

I noticed you edited the article right after me. Hopefully there wasn't an edit conflict issue. I'm talking to the user (or trying) right now regarding this page move, which was done through copy-paste so it's a bit messy. There are two issues, 1) the procedural problems of the copy paste renames, and 2) the question of whether or not the rename's correct.

I would like some additional input if you are so inclined. Shadowjams (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expressed my view on Talk:Firewall (computer).

For one thing, please, please don't do copy&paste moves, they cause major hassles for admins like me to clean up.

For a second i think that neither topic is "primary" in the sense that we can be sure that most readers will be looking for that topic and not any of the others associatesd with the term "Firewall". In this case, the normal thing to do, asdn suggested by WP:DAB is to put the disambiguation page itself at the primary name, in this case Firewall. DES ^(talk) 02:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I explained that I didn't do that. I'm the one trying to figure it out and clean it up. The user who did all of this was User talk:Da Vynci, as I linked above. Shadowjams (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comment. I am in agreement. Here's my previous comment (edit conflicted)

I am skeptical of whether or not it's a correct move under WP:PT. Firewall proper gets about 3,000 hits/day, whereas Firewall construction gets about 300. I find it highly unlikely that all of those people are looking for the construction concept, and don't click through. This should be listed at Requested moves; I don't think it's gotten enough (actually it hasn't gotten any) discussion. The WT:Firewall page had its last post on April 2009, then this user posted and waited a short time. Shadowjams (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for implying incorrectly that you had doen the C&P move. I was confused by all this for a moment -- i came to this situation from CAT:CSD. DES ^(talk) 02:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that further discussion on the merits occur at Talk:Firewall (computer)#Proposed rename. DES ^(talk) 02:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok cool. Yeah, it was such a messed up move history I certainly don't want you confusing my name with it. It took me 5 minutes just to figure out what was going on. I saw it on new page patrol, and figured that we have to have some sort of firewall article.

I think you and I are in agreement. I even think the firewall (networking) article probably should reside at Firewall, although I wouldn't be completely opposed otherwise.

The only other thing is that I believe Firewall (networking) and Firewall (computer) are duplicates of eachother right now. Shadowjams (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Shadowjams (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Barry

As the tag was removed originally by the article's creator, which as you know they are not supposed to do, I think you should restore it, particularly since the reason your removed it turned out to be an error. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ignore that, I've seen the AfD. I'm pretty sure that we have an account here using an IP also to edit. It may be just cluelessness, not realising they are logged out, or deliberate, I don't know. Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be correct about the creator also editing as an IP, but since he doesn't seem to be pretending to be two people, or otherwise editing disruptively (except for the removal of the speedy tag, which I will AP:AGF to be ignorance) there is no problem that i can see. I chose to edit solely as an IP for over a year, and still sometimes find myself logged out unexpectedly. DES ^(talk) 17:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletes

Hi, I acknowledge that the speedy deletes that I proposed were probably not the right way to go about it. I had requested help for milhist group to move as both articles existed so could not move convientally and need an admin. I waited and waited but still nothing so I decided to do it by copy and pasting, which now I was the incorrect method. Newm30 (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, we all learn. I am not upset, merely trying to explain the situation. Wikipedia is a big complex place. Other ways to get help in future:

Place the {{helpme}} tag on your talk page, just above or below a description of the problem;
Post on the Wikipedia:Help desk;
ask someone you know to be an admin or an experienced editor;
look at Wikipedia:List of administrators to find a possibly helpful admin.

I hope this advice is useful. DES ^(talk) 22:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Paul Blackburn (public speaker)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Paul Blackburn (public speaker). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Blackburn (public speaker). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Award from: Article Rescue Squadron Hall of Fame

Congratulations, you have been inducted into the Article Rescue Squadron Hall of Fame for Barry John Walsh.

See the new little Life Preserver at the top of your page?

Coding:

Feel free to add more articles saved awards to your page, and to award other people this award too, for saving articles from deletion on Wikipedia. Okip (formerly Ikip) 09:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WildBot and 7SeriesBOT

Hey, when 7Series actually goes into live mode, would you agree that WildBot's G7 tagging makes sense once again? Right now, 7Series is doing a lot less "work" than it would with that kind of activity. Cheers! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would. I thought it had already resumed. DES ^(talk) 16:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Yeah, I might just merge it right now. I was in a hurry at the time, so that pretty much explains it all. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already completed. I just usually leave short and sweet reasons since they become rather dull after 50 tags. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Super Ball

On February 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Super Ball, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Isabel Ashdown

On February 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Isabel Ashdown, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness Quotient

Could you please reinstate this article? OTRS has received an email releasing the material it was a copyright infringement of. The ticket number is 2010021410013991. I will add the relevant tags as soon as it is up again. Thank you in advance. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J-Ethinomics

Hello, you either prodded or endorsed prod on J-Ethinomics. The article creator left a note on the article talk page indicating that deletion is not uncontroversial. Therefore, I have opened an AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J-Ethinomics. Please opine at that discussion. Thanks! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similarity between religion and mythology

Hey,

I kind of agree with you when you said that Similarity between religion and mythology isn't really vandalism, but it feels like there must be a better option than to let it sit there for a week, no? -Zeus-^u|c 02:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could always convert it into a redirect to some article if you can find an appropriate one. Or edit to be less of an essay. I don't see major harm in letting this sit for a week, and i do see major harm in letting the CSD slip. DES ^(talk) 02:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed it to Religion and mythology but put on a new prod stating my concern of it being a loaded term. -Zeus-^u|c 02:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once you make it a redir, you can't prod it. see WP:PROD "Note that only articles, lists, and disambiguation pages may be deleted using the Proposed deletion process." DES ^(talk) 02:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh... didn't know that. Well, there's really no harm leaving it as it is. -Zeus-^u|c 02:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed it at WP:RFD, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 February 17. DES ^(talk) 02:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DESiegel. You have new messages at -Zeus-'s talk page.
Message added 14:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

-Zeus-^u|c 14:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DESiegel. You have new messages at -Zeus-'s talk page.
Message added 18:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

-Zeus-^u|c 18:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy declination of Inktel DIrect

Hi, I noticed you turned down WP:CSD#A7 on the article Inktel DIrect. I had considered the awards as a claim of significance when I nominated it, but decided that they did not "indicate why the company was important". However, I respect your decision and have listed it for AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inktel DIrect -Zeus-^u|c 22:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Before nominating an article for deletion, particularly the sections that says"When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." and "If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." It seems to me that you are being a bit fast on the deletion trigger. Please consider trying to improve articles, or failing that, tagging them to suggest improvements to others, before nominating for deletion. DES ^(talk) 23:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re. tagging of 2012 Formula One season

Thanks for highlighting my error in incorrectly tagging the article for speedy deletion. A discussion arose at WP:F1 regarding the creation of the article, and I was in agreement that the article should have been deleted because the season is so far in the future. Looking back now, it would have been better to have followed the previous procedure by prodding the article instead. I think the redirect was the best solution. Thanks again, Schumi555 21:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Proding with a citation of WP:CRYSTAL would also have been reasonable. Now it might be that there has already been enough discussion of the 2012 season for a worth while article to be based on reliable sources, i wouldn't know. But if so, the article at hand wasn't it. Thanks for calling attention to a very dubious article, but please in future try to be extra careful in the use of speedy deletion tags, because often only two sets of eyes see them (the tagger and the reviewing admin), and only clear cut cases should IMO avoid broader consensus in this manner. DES ^(talk) 21:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your welcome in my user discussion page. And I appreciate all the links you have provided.

$$$ Fierce D $$$ (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL and Wikipedia

Hi DESiegel. I noticed that you recently removed a copyvio tag from the Roberto bulatao feleo article because the content was released under the GFDL license. However, GFDL-only text can no longer be used on Wikipedia since the switch to dual licensing on June 16, 2009 (see Wikipedia:Licensing update). Just thought I'd let you know. :) Regards, The leftorium 13:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I missed that. But even so, something released under a fre license, even if not the correct free license, is not IMO the kind of blatant copyvio for which speedy deletion is appropriate, the slower process at WP:Copyright problems would allow determining whether the creator would cross-license. DES ^(talk) 13:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "author" of the Wikipedia article has been given instructions on how to proceed in the automatic template that was left of his/her talk page. The article can be restored later on, but right now it needs to be deleted as a copyright violation. Also, a specific speedy deletion template was created for GFDL-copyvios: Template:Db-gfdl. The leftorium 13:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On seeing that, my first inclination is to tag {{Db-gfdl}} for speedy deletion as a template that mis-states policy. WP:CSD#G12 syas "...with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license...". It does not say "a cc-by-SA license" nor "a compatible free license". I will not support a speedy deletion as a copyvio of text under any free license, that should be a matter for WP:CP. DES ^(talk) 13:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering we've had several similar experiences with Wikipilipinas, as an admin working on CP, posting it there is merely delaying the inevitable. MLauba (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you raise a very good point about the letter of the law, one I've brought to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Change to G12: accepted license. I have tweaked the policy to include the word "accepted", which I believe accurately reflects practice, but I wanted to be sure to let you know about that conversation so you could join in if you disagree. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Residential Specialists

DE, Thank you for reviewing my article. I also appreciate you cleaning up some of the elements that were in error. I have read up on citation and I was curious if for something like the Mission Statement and Objectives contains peacock language how would I make it clear that I am quoting from them and not putting those phrases in there? I already have footnotes at the end of both paragraphs but wondering if there was a better way? I also plan on looking up more third party sources, just wanted to get a good start from what I've read. Thanks. Rkairis (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)rkairis[reply]

When something like a mission statement is a direct quote, put it within quote marks at the least. This indicates more clearly that it is quoted. You can also introduce quotes. An article could say something like:

According to its website, the council's mission is "To promote.... To assist..." and its guiding principles are "To ensure fair dealing while.... To always...."

That sort of thing, combined with a properly cited reference to the source of the quote, makes is crystal clear whose words these are. Similarly, if one is reporting opinion about the subject, one should attribute the opinion in the text. For example, an article might say:

John Jones said of the Council "It is the most helpful organization i have ever belonged to",(citation) but Eve Dallas felt that "It has no value whatsoever".(citation)

Note that if there is significant negative opinion about a subject that has been reported in a reliable source it ought to be included and properly attributed so that it is clear whose opinion it is. The article itself should not express or imply an opinion, but merely report the opinions of specified others. (This the the neutral point of view.) Terms like "Many critics have said" or "most of those in the industry feel" should be avoided, and specific views of named people (or institutions speaking through official statements) used instead. Such terms are often called "weasel words".

More third-party sources would be very good. However, note that they should be published in reliable sources. Blogs, online forum posts, and the like should not be used. Mentions in directories are of at best limited value. Passing mentions are also of little value, a news story saying something like "Fred Smith, CEO of Acme Products, was appointed to the President's council on natural wildlife" may be relevant to an article about Smith, but probably not to one about Acme.

I hope this is helpful, feel free to ask further questions if you have them. And of course, do remember that although i have some Wikipedia experience (as can be seen on my user page), different editors have different opinions, and my views should not be taken as the One True Wikipedia Way^TM, indeed there is no One True Way. DES ^(talk) 20:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, a minor point, when you leave a msg on someone's talk page about a particular article, it is often helpful to leave a link to the article (by putting the article's exact name in [[Double square brackets]]). Even if the person has worked on the article before, a link makes it easier and quicker for the person to actual go to the article in question, and see it or edit it. DES ^(talk) 20:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DE, thank you for the feedback. I am trying to work towards everything but had a couple quick questions. You first item says that "all of the references are bare hyperlinks, and need to be converted to include the relevant metadata" and I've read the links but am slightly confused. If I don't want to add a references section and have everything be referenced in the footnotes, what do you think the proper formatting in? Also, I read up on meta data and are you suggesting I use the COinS generator for all my links? I viewed some other articles and most footnotes just had the website and article title. Just want to see what you think is "good enough" for a reference. Thanks Rkairis (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)rkairis[reply]

I'll try to clarify a bit.

Consider one reference currently number 5. the currnt wiki-text for this is:
<ref>http://issueswire.com/releases/2006/08/prweb430208.htm AgencyLogic Receives Council of Residential Specialists 'Quality Tested Seal of Approval' for PowerSites, an Innovative Single Property Website Creation and Marketing Tool</ref>

I would suggest that it instead read something like
<ref>[http://issueswire.com/releases/2006/08/prweb430208.htm "AgencyLogic Receives Council of Residential Specialists 'Quality Tested Seal of Approval' for PowerSites, an Innovative Single Property Website Creation and Marketing Tool" August 29, 2006 by Robin Morgan, published by AgencyLogic via Issues Wire / PRWEB, retrieved 24 February 2010]</ref>

or better yet
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://issueswire.com/releases/2006/08/prweb430208.htm|title=AgencyLogic Receives Council of Residential Specialists 'Quality Tested Seal of Approval' for PowerSites, an Innovative Single Property Website Creation and Marketing Tool|last=Morgan|first=Robin |date=August 29, 2006|publisher=AgencyLogic via Issues Wire / PRWEB|accessdate=24 February 2010}}</ref>

you see that the reference as displayed should include the title of the story, article, or web page, the date of publication (when available), the name of the author (when available), the newspaper, journal, or other work of which the story or article forms a part (when there is one), the date of access (for purely web sources, and optionally for sources found online that have also been printed), and the publisher (except when the name of the newspaper or journal is well enough known that this is not useful)
There is no need to use the COinS generator, but there is a need to capture the same basic information about a cited source that a printed research paper or academic journal would use. This allows a reader to evaluate your sources without having to follow every link, and also aids in finding a source again should a link go bad (see linkrot).
part of the problem is that too many of your sources are press releases. Currently citations # 4, 5, & 6 are to outside press releases, # 1 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are to parts of the crs.com web site, #9 is to an offline publication of the CRS, and #7 is a mere directory entry. Press releases often don't have stated authors, but they do generally have dates of puiblication and publishers.
Also, press releases and citations to an organization's own publications, including its web site, generally don't help to establish notability. Do read our guidelines on reliable sources and notability.
I generally prefer to use citation templates to format references, as in my second example, but that is strictly optional.
You can gather the citation information together into the reference section using list-defined references, but that is also optional. It reduces the clutter in the main wiki text, but requires an extra step when adding a new reference.
In any case please read our guide to citations and our help page on footnotes.

I hope these comments help, feel free to ask further questions. DES ^(talk) 00:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, my signature is "DES", short for "David E. Siegel", not "DE". DES ^(talk) 00:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chikamaka Band

The copyvio still remains I'm afraid. Sentences such as "Some things were forgotten and some practices ceased." and "Because of the various backgrounds intermingled in one people it is not uncommon..." are copied from http://www.chikamaka.org/org/?page_id=8. Thanks for helping out, BTW. The leftorium 22:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I must have missed those in the source. I will do a more through job later tonight if possible. I hope you will agree that the paragraphs i did rewrite -- largely those now sourced to www.chikamaka.org -- are changed enough not to be copyvios any longer. DES ^(talk) 22:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you're still working on this one. :) I've blanked it for now, since it still constitutes a copyright problem, and we need to prevent its being mirrored until its rewritten completely or permission is verified. One of the challenges of working SCV (and I'm always glad to see more people working copyrights! We need it!) is identifying all the text copied in the article. When content is copied from multiple pages, Corensearchbot often only lists one. It's generally a good idea to do a scan other content as well to make sure that there's not something from other pages, inside or outside of the same domain. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will be working on, and I hope finishing, this one today. DES ^(talk) 15:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is sufficiently rewritten now. DES ^(talk) 00:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback

Hello DESiegel. Thank you for your feedback on my draft article. I believe I have fixed the referencing format. The page is now live at International media reaction to Barack Obama's 2008 election. I welcome any further feedback. --Panda609 18:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC) ‎ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandaroyal (talk • contribs)

Article Clean up

Hello. You removed the delete tag on Michael Doret and mentioned the article could use some clean up. If it's not too much trouble, I would appreciate a little guidance regarding clean up. I have tried to keep all sentences factual while still reading well but as this is my first article, any feedback would be great. Thanks! -Sdazet (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is that it reads like a bulleted list of accomplisments or events, in short, like a resume. There needs to be more prose to flesh those accoplishments out and describe or explain their significance.

"Along with his design studio, Doret owns AlphabetSoup Type Founders[6] which distributes his original font designs through Font Bros.,[7] Fontshop,[8] MyFonts[9] and Veer.[10]" doesn't really fit well in the "Biographical info" section, it could perhaps go into a "Career" or "Work" section, but only if expanded a bit. What kinds of type designs has he done? Have any been particularly significant or innovative?

The references are currently bare URLs. They should include the basic metadata, such as author, publisher, date, and work. This can be done manually, but I think it is easier and more consistent to use the Citation templates, such as {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, and {{cite book}}. See our guide to citation and the Help:Footnotes page. The RefTool gadget (in Preferences|Gadgets) makes this much easier.

The external links should also be given descriptive titles rather than bare URLs, I have done the first one.

I hope this helps. DES ^(talk) 03:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very much so. I'll work on getting it cleaned up. Thank you. - Sdazet (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Christopher Sanderson

Please see the edit history of Neil Sanderson. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at it. I had looked at it before. I don't understand your point. i recognize that these are two names for the same person, that is why i suggested a merge. I recognize that Neil Sanderson was converted to a redir some months ago, but as a member of two different notable bands, the rationale for that no longer applies (if it did then). If you think some of my edits were in error or ill-advised, please be more explicit about the problem and why it is one. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 03:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:MDoret.jpg

The uploader of the image is not the owner and has provided no evidence that the true copyright owner has released the image under any compatible license. See [6] for our discussion. Woogee (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you that clarifies matters. Has the image been listed for deletion on commons, or should I do so? DES ^(talk) 18:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you wouldn't mind. I've never done a deletion attempt on commons, and don't know what templates to use. Woogee (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see the image on comons and the deletion discussion page DES ^(talk) 18:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. So, if I click "nominate for deletion" on the left menu, it will lead me by the hand through the deletion process? Woogee (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Along the way it opens an edit window or tab (depending on your settings) and you must save as part of completing the nomination. DES ^(talk) 21:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Woogee (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I just wanted to tell you I appreciate the work you did on my little Happy's Pizza article. I really didn't expect it to get picked apart so quickly. PeRshGo (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hungry macrophage

OMG. Thanks Dloh cierekim 22:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A7 reason on the drop down

Please see WT:CSD#A7: No indication that the article may meet notability guidelines?, which i pointed at on MediaWiki talk:Deletereason-dropdown#A7 summary, reprise before i edited the page. There seems to be consensus on the WT:CSD page that the "no indications of Importance" wording (which you reintroduced in this edit is misleading and unhelpful. Please consider self-reverting or at least engaging in the discussion on the WT:CSD page. DES ^(talk) 00:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I overlooked that discussion. (In the future, it would be helpful to include a link in the edit summary instead of appending it to a thread from more than a year ago, which I didn't notice when I checked the bottom of the talk page.)

I've replied to the discussion and adjusted the wording to address the concern expressed therein. —David Levy 00:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that I should have started a new thread -- I mis-read the latest comment as Jan of this year. It would also have been better to have but a link in the edit summery you are right. I will remember this. Thank you for responding. DES ^(talk) 01:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Those were minor missteps (which I've made in the past). I just wanted it to be clear that I checked for a talk page message and didn't intend to bypass the discussion. —David Levy 01:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I have continued the discussion on WT:CSD -- I think your latest tweak is still significantly suboptimal. i have refrained from reverting or changing in the interest of not altering an interface page too often, but I do think there is reason to change the version you edited, and that the past comments of others suggest that they will agree. I hope we will obtain consensus in fairly short order, and can then change the text and hope for it to be stable for a while. DES ^(talk) 01:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded as well. I'm confident that consensus can be reached with minimal difficulty, as there appears to be only minor disagreement. —David Levy 01:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Question of wording, not overall intention. DES ^(talk) 01:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging of 2532 (Milton Keynes) Squadron

Hello and thanks for the note. I am well aware that my tagging is quite fast but in my eyes the CSD user page notification also serves as a hint at what to improve in the article. Apart from that, I've seen CSD tags being handed out instantaneously with either Huggle or Twinkle, so I don't really see a need to change my practice. De728631 (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly why I don't use automated means and try to judge from case to case. Just a few minutes ago I saw another case where AWB tagged an article about a Professor as non-notable. That said, I still don't think that I'm acting too fast when tagging one-liners that consist of a mere weblink after "only" 3 minutes. De728631 (talk)

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

Thanks

Thanks for deleting this - the reason I didn't warn the user is because there username is also a blatant vio of WP:U and I reported them to UAA and figured they would get the message from the block. Do you think the username is okay? Regards, 7 07:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looked to me as if the page was autobiographical and promotional, but I didn't see indications that the name represented a group -- rather it looked as if he has named his "business" after himself or vice-versa. But I don't presume to draw any final conclusions on the matter. I always give speedy tagging notification even when i am going to report a far more clearcut COI username than this one. DES ^(talk) 07:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood - thanks. The name also matches his website, where the copyvio was from. I'll wait and see what they say at UAA. 7 07:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vocabulary of ancient Roman religion

Hi, DES. Re: various issues, I've responded on the talk page. Haploidavey (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rockingham County Sheriff's Office

I thank you much for what you did to my article. I realize what I did was not proper and I won't create articles like that anymore. Jar789 (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome. Many people don't understand Wikipedia policies at first. DES ^(talk) 02:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Night Safari

This article was evidently speedily deleted at the request of the author or main contributor, so I have no quarrel with the deletion. It came to my attention only through the removal of the link in the List of zoos list, which I am currently monitoring. I'm curious as to what was in the article to begin with, since "Night Safari" is a legitimate Zoo in Singapore and there seems to be enough material to readily create at least a start-class article about the zoo. I am not asking for an undelete at this time, but if possible I would like to see what was there. If there was a legal reason for this deletion, I would like to know so that we don't step on that reason when we do re-create that article at some point. I'm relatively new here, and I have no idea how to even find the original editor's name to ask questions once an article is deleted. Thanks. Donlammers (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be now at Night Safari, Singapore. But by using the robot, it merely removed the links instead of amending them to point at the new article name. Please assist to rectify this, thanks!--Huaiwei (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was speedy deleted was the redirect left behind by the move to Night Safari, Singapore. The "Remove backlinks" feature should not have been used in this casae, my apologies. I am fixing the affected pages now. DES ^(talk) 16:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I managed to find only some affected pages in my watchlist, so can't help you much in this regard! ;)--Huaiwei (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the changes that the script made are recorded in my contributions, so I am able to find and fix them all. Actually, most of these links would have needed adjustment in any case, some now go to the dab page at Night Safari, most to Night Safari, Singapore. All pages affected have now been fixed, see my contribs. Thanks for alerting me to the problem here. DES ^(talk) 16:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most welcome and thanks again!--Huaiwei (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, folks. Everything seems to be in order. I should have thought to check at "Night Safari, Singapore" -- my bad. Donlammers (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Closet (disambiguation)‎

Hi DESiegel. Sorry, I missed that CSD-A10 doesn't cover disambiguation pages. I'll keep that in mind for the future. Anyway, could you advise on the best way to merge In the Closet (disambiguation)‎ with In the closet (disambiguation)‎ (note the capitalization)? I don't think that the topic merits two disambiguation pages, given that two-thirds of the content on the former is already included on the latter. Thanks! Kittensandrainbows (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had missed that there were two dab pages. I agree they should be merged. One just copies entreis from one to the other, and converts the other to a redir or deletes it, as may seem best. (If deletion seems best, after a merge it can be tagged as G6 housekeeping, provided there is no lost info in the history that needs to be preserved, such as for attributions) DES ^(talk) 03:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done DES ^(talk) 03:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vocabulary of Roman religion

Thank you for your message and helpfulness. I have not yet read the two books but I shall do if they are on google. Me too I am not an expert in Roman things however I am interested in the subject and read some good books, written by Frenchmen alas. Now for editing this article I started reading more, what google has to offer.

I warmly invite every interested person to take part in the editing.

The reason why I started it is pretty simple: if you look at what is written in wikipedia articles under the entries I write about you shall see that they do not deal expressly with the subject of Roman religion. And from that standpoint the panorama is pretty dismal. This is true for sacer, sanctus, ritus, omen, templum and other. Sometimes they offer some partial information mixed with other topics. See eg omen. Sanctus is not holy. Lex is not exactly law in modern sense. But maybe in Anglosaxon it had a similar meaning to Latin. I shall try and make the alterations and additions you propose, especially the translations soon, possibly I shall cut much that is redundant under the entry religio.Aldrasto (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can quite agree this is a topic we need better coverage of. Note that I was not the person who suggested the books. If I can help with the Wikipedia editing and structure part, feel free to let me know. DES ^(talk) 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project Gutenberg has:

The Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism by Franz Cumont at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/22213
The Religious Experience of the Roman People From the Earliest Times to the Age of Augustus by W. Warde Fowler at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/23349
Social life at Rome in the Age of Cicero by W. Warde Fowler at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/11256
The Common People of Ancient Rome by Frank Frost Abbott at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/13226
The Religion of Ancient Rome by Cyril Bailey at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/18564
The Religion of Numa And Other Essays on the Religion of Ancient Rome by Jesse Benedict Carter at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/18222
Pagan and Christian Rome by Rodolfo Amedeo Lanciani at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/22153
The History of Rome, Books 01 to 08 by Titus Livius at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/19725 (the other sections of Livy are also available)
Atheism in Pagan Antiquity by A. B. Drachmann at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/28312

All of these are in the public domain in the US, which mostly means they were published before 1923. Whether any of them is useful i cannot say. But I thought I should make you aware of another possible online resource. DES ^(talk) 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpfulness. I appreciate very much your contribution: particularly the book by J. B. Carter shall be useful, I supposeAldrasto (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Re: Tagging of Tarbabe

That's fine, thanks. I'll ride with the prod and watch the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging of Jodie Allen

Fair enough. I tagged it with Huggle, so I guess the notification template is Huggle's. I didn't realise it was using a non-standard message. – ukexpat (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks. Maybe I'll ask the Huggle maintainer about this. DES ^(talk) 01:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

let me see it

I am most interested in seeing the article. I was half way evaluating it, looking up policies and guidelines, and keeping a tab on how it qualifies and how it does not qualify. So putting it in my userspace would help me decide. If I think it is a delete, then I am not too interested in DRV.

The trouble with this case is that the person who seems against the editor is the one that is deleting and closing the AFD early. Thank you. Ipromise (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I don't intend to work on it unless I really start to get interested. For now, I just want to read about the coach and see if it is a crappy article or a decent one. Ipromise (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of User talk:Europebusiness

Hello DESiegel, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, User talk:Europebusiness, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Calton. This has been done because the page is a blatant advert that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Calton. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of Calton (talk · contribs) 14:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of American University of Iraq Page

Hi DESiegel - you incorrectly deleted the wikipedia entitled "The American University of Iraq - Sulaimani", citing that similar pages already exist elsewhere. There is one other page entitled "American University of Iraq of Sulaimani" but this is incorrectly titled. If you see the official university website at: www.auis.org, you will quickly see the difference. The page should be re-instituted, as the difference is similar to calling saying the Harvard College page exists, but is entitled "The University of Harvard in Cambridge" - it is not accurate. Please correct your mistake, and allow us to add more content to the correct page. Thank you for your time. Indexing89 (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thouhgt I explained this at the time. -- On checking, I find that I did, at User talk:Abe Ravelstein. The American University of Iraq - Sulaimani was not merely a "similar page" to American University of Sulaimani, it was a pasted direct copy. Making duplicate articles in this way is against wikipedia practice. it causes confusion, and fails to properly attribute the work of previous editors. If you think that the articel title should be changed, the correct way is to suggest renaming (also called moving) the article on its talk page, Talk:American University of Sulaimani. See also Requested moves and our page on the process of moving/renaming pages. Thus the deleted copy will not be restored, but the existing article can be renamed if there is consensus to do so. Any editor can do the rename, an admin is not required. DES ^(talk) 18:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why SHOULDN'T the Rodney Watson article be in mainspace?

The whole point of Wikipedia is that an article does not need to be a finished product to be publicly viewable. By keeping articles-in-progress in mainspace where they can be easily found, they facilitate the kind of collaborative editing that the wiki format is meant for. At Wikipedia, we're not interested in the cloistered, bazaar model of content building. Wikipedia is all about articles growing organically, maybe starting with a sentence or two and then, as people come by and see it, if they have a bit to add they can do so. Keeping unfinished articles shut off in some corner of someone's user space makes this impossible. It's distinctly anti-Wikipedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 00:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was, to some extant, the way Wikipedia initially operated. Although even then, some standards were insisted on. And since then standards have grown. But what is being insisted on here is not that the article be a "finished product" but that there be some visible evidence that this person is in fact notable. At present there seems no such evidence. In any case you are arguing in the wrong place. I can't make this decision. The decision on this particular article will be made at the DRV discussion; the more general point could be raised at Wikipedia talk:Notability or in an RfC. DES ^(talk) 01:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What has changed, exactly? I've been here since 2005; in that time, I don't see how the fundamental nature of a wiki (which is what this ultimately stems from) has changed at all. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 14:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What has changed, as I see it, is the extent to which notability has been insisted on as a pre-condition for having an article. What has also changed IMO is the degree to which sources are being insited on to establish notability. Mind you, I recall plenty of articles being deleted for non-notability in 2006. I recall the debates on the creation of WP:CSD#A7 in which I had a hand. Notability and the probability of demonstrating it were significant factors in the formulation of A7. Notability was the key of the debates on the deletions of school articles. What has further changed is the attitude to BLP articles in particular, startling with the Sieganthaler case and growing. In short, the position that sources are never needed except for contentious and challenged facts does not appear to have consensus any longer. Or to put it another way, notability is a fact that can be challenged by putting an article up for deletion, and when so challenged, sources to support that notability must be provided.

Mind you, i personally think that some of those expressing strong views on the need for sources for BLPs have gone too far. I am on record extensively with this during the recent RfC on BLPs to that effect. I have in general, been more of an inclusionist than a deletionist -- look at my record of AfDs if you wish (I used to describe myself as a "mergist" on that spectrum). So you are perhaps arguing with the wrong person here. Your points are not without value, but there is, IMO also some value in requiring soem bar to inclusion, some standard for notability. I would be open to different ways of establishing it perhaps, and to possibly different standards. But I think a standard beyond "It exists and is verifiable" is in most cases needed. I exist and am verifiable -- indeed I have had multiple (local) news stories about me when I ran for local political office (and lost), but I do not think that I or another similar person ought to have a Wikipedia article.

I suggested, above, that the general issue would need to be raised at WT:N or in an RFC. The terms of your editing restriction would prevent you from commenting in either forum. I understand that you challenge the validity of that restriction. I did not participate in drafting or discussing that restriction, and I am not prepared to debate its validity with you at this time. But if you wish to avoid fighting over it (which i suspect would be likely to result in another block) and want to draft comments for either forum, I would in principal be willing to post them on your behalf, provided they don't to me appear to violate WP:CIVIL or any other applicable standard. whether to do so is entirely up to you, but it has IMO a higher chance of making an actual difference than will discussion with me, even if you could convert me entirely to your views. DES ^(talk) 19:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As so-called "policy" on Wikipedia merely reflects existing practice, the only way to change so-called "policy" is to change existing practice first, which necessitates convincing individuals. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 02:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Internet Exchange

I don't see much difference in quality of this web page in comparison to, for instance article of the same type, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Internet_Exchange The lack of information from google is because ukrainian internet is not widespread yet. Including information about it would help spread the word about it. I will work on improving the article in the future, but want to mention that I don't see any reason for it's deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkononenko (talk • contribs) 09:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you for your view, but you would do better to make this argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainian Internet Exchange. I will make a substantive response there. Also, please put new discussions in their own section. It is also helpful to link the article being referred to. I have done both for this discussion. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 15:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kmweber

I find your approach in this matter very professional, very anti-drama. Great job. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such was my aim. One does not always hit what one aims at. Thanks for your comment. DES ^(talk) 21:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also thank you for the enlightenment. It was very nice meeting you. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PacificTimesheet_Company

Hello, I noticed that you speed deleted this page. And I would like to retrieve the page and to make some editting on it. The reason I think this page is a useful resource for Wikipedia is because the "comparing time tracking table" on the wikipedia site contains some companys that the reference links are not there any more(click on the reference links for them, you will see what i mean), or the products have nothing new to offer to your viewer but a simpler version of some the existing ones in the list. Versus Pacific Timesheet has something unique that noone in the list has: it is state rule compliance, california labor law compliance, and it has fully supported Chinese_version and French_Version. Please let me know what do you think and how I can retrieve the page back for more editting. Thank you! Shijianbiao (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested articel restored and userfied. Responded at User talk:Shijianbiao#Article restored DES ^(talk) 16:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

74.107.145.152 (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)I have updated the page, please let me know if it meets the standard to pubish or not, thanks! One thing I noticed is Wiki doesn't have a page for "Time Off Management", that is a big area related to timesheet products. Pacific Timesheet does that and I am in the process of writing a wiki page for that area after I am done with Pacific Timesheet page. Please let me know what do you think, thanks for your time! 74.107.145.152 (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments on your recent edits at User talk:Shijianbiao/PacificTimesheet Company. As to an article on "Time Off Management", it would need to be written neutrally, and to cite reliable sources that showed that it was a notable subject. DES ^(talk) 20:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for access to content in deleted article

Sir, Could you provide me access to content in the Reports of Organ Harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China article, as it was around July 2009. There was a lot of material in it which was lost in the delete process. I was thinking of starting a page on The Kilgour-Matas Reports and it would help much if I could have access to the contents. Sincerely, Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was actually called Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China (article names are case sensitive). It was merged into Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China, not deleted. The talk page was deleted.

here is the version as of 1 July 2009. And Here is the version as of 11 September 2009. There were many revisions in July and early August 2009, which can be accessed from the links above.

I hope this provides you the information you want. DES ^(talk) 15:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your prompt reply and for making the content available. I have coped the information I wanted from it. I understand the articles were merged, what I meant to say was that a significant portion of the contents were lost in the merge process, as it were UNDUE in the namespace "Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China." The same would be relevant in an article on the Kilgour Matas reports.

Thanks again.

Sincerely, Dilip rajeev (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. it was not deleted in that no admin tools were needed to see it. The older page was converted into a redirect, and the content was preserved in the history of the redirect page. This is often done in merges. DES ^(talk) 16:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not forget nothing

Thank You very much for Your time! -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace Draft and Noindex

In an MfD discussion yesterday you said "I have added {{userspace draft}} which applies NOINDEX." That's very useful, if true, but are you sure? The template documentation doesn't say so. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More exactly it adds the NOINDEX parameter if and only if it is used in the User or User talk namespaces. I have verified this in the template's code. See the template's talk page. I'm not sure why this isn't in the main template documatation, it may be that we don't want to scare off users creating promotional pages which should use this template but might not if their creators fully understood the consequences. DES ^(talk) 22:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a sensible reason. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Dr. Hedayat.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dr. Hedayat.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 20:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Fagin the Jew cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Fagin the Jew cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 21:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:UAS Laboratories Logo.png

Thank you for uploading File:UAS Laboratories Logo.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 21:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou

Hi , Thanx for the links on my talkpage. They have been useful. Whew! So I just need to make some more edits and be a 4 day old member to upload the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mage007 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Mage007 (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome. I am glad I was able to be of some help. That is correct, to upload a file you need to have an account at least 4 days old and that has made at least 210 edits. This is to help control spammers and vandals, who in the past uploaded images, including porn images, quite rapidly after getting accounts. Please remeber to sign posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). The software will convert this to your username and a timestamp, or your custom signature and a timestamp if you have set one in your preferences. Do not sign article pages, however. DES ^(talk) 22:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you meant 10 edits (instead of 210 written above) and yeah I have been trying to work with the four tildes, but im just forgetful at times . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mage007 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for messing things up again :( Mage007 (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem w all make errors at times, as I did with "210". DES ^(talk) 22:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:File:Dr. Hedayat.JPG

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

-FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brews ohare's topic ban appeal

Just to give you a courtesy that the ban discussion has been moved to WP:AN as (un)ban discussions normally go there. Thank you, –MuZemike 03:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Pearl (businessman)

I see you have been doing a little clean up, as have I. One thing that looks awful is the referencing style/format, but I am not sure I have the energy at the moment to do anything about it. The tone of the article still looks a little promo to me... – ukexpat (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact i edit conflicted with you a couple of times. I don't like the reference style, but it is officially allowed by WP:CITE. I will mention it on the talk page. DES ^(talk) 21:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page mention made. DES ^(talk) 21:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fight pastor

Thanks. The original author added several significant references after I tagged it. Frankly, I didn't think it would be notable, but an article in the New York Times is certainly enough to clear the speedy bar, and probably to keep it for good, though the article still needs work. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad some references have been added, they had not been when I saw the article. I was referring to its state when you tagged it for speedy deletion. Please remember that WP:CSD#A7 says that "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." (Emphasis altered) I would put it that if a claim would avoid deletion at AFD if multiple high-quality sources are found to support it, then it is enough to avoid A7 with zero sources. Please do keep this in mind when considering A7 tags and deletions in future. DES ^(talk) 14:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For your superb work sourcing and rescuing Revolutionary Anti-Racist Action. Mkativerata (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome stuff. This work motivates me (and I hope others) to try harder to save articles. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. DES ^(talk) 07:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming to give you one, only to see I've been beaten to it. Excellent work, thank you. --GRuban (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just logged on and saw your message about rescuing. I agree with the above: well done with the article! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 14:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephaunelite

A tough call on the surface, I admit, but I feel it's justified. "Stephaun Elite" is his name for commercial purposes, for his drag exhibitions. Had he posted as Stephaun Wallace he wouldn't have been blocked. Had you registered your account as David The Great and made some of your first edits the promotion of David the Great Entertainment Services, that could have been blocked.

Perhaps I should have made this a pure COI block. Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silliness

If Doxiedana comes back to Wikipedia and asks me to restore her userpage, I will consider it. Are you claiming Doxiedana as your alternate account? DS (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am claiming a violation of WP:BITE and WP:DEL. I think you have been rather quick with the delete button. DRV ho. DES ^(talk) 14:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I let people get away with silliness on their userpages under a couple of conditions: first, that they've actually done something useful to the project, and second, that they not be trying to sneak unacceptable articles in the back door. This one failed on both counts. DS (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enzymes

If you're going to stalk my deletion log, please read the message I left for the user who submitted that reductase mess. DS (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just read it, and it seems to me a clear violation of WP:BITE. I also disagree with the substance of the comment. Do I take it you decline to undelete the article? DES ^(talk) 14:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as to "stalking", having found several of your deletions incorrect IMO, i have indeed been reviewing some of the ones in your log, that is one thing the logs are there for. DES ^(talk) 14:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ Dana Stevens (September 6 2005). "Gilligan's Dreams". slate.msn.com. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0311_dawn_wells_wm.pdf Jail Booking Detail], Teton County Sheriff, October 18, 2007
^ Associated Press, via the Seattle Post-Intelligencer website (March 11 2008). "Gilligan's Island good girl caught with pot". Retrieved 2008-03-11. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1] Dana Stevens (September 6 2005). "Gilligan's Dreams". slate.msn.com. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[tmz-2] ttp://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0311_dawn_wells_wm.pdf Jail Booking Detail], Teton County Sheriff, October 18, 2007

[Seattle_PI-3] Associated Press, via the Seattle Post-Intelligencer website (March 11 2008). "Gilligan's Island good girl caught with pot". Retrieved 2008-03-11. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 1,388: / Line 1,388: @@
 If Doxiedana comes back to Wikipedia and asks me to restore her userpage, I will consider it. Are you claiming Doxiedana as your alternate account? [[User:DragonflySixtyseven|DS]] ([[User talk:DragonflySixtyseven|talk]]) 14:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 :No, I am claiming a violation of [[WP:BITE]] and [[WP:DEL]]. I think you have been rather quick with the delete button. DRV ho. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 14:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
+::I let people get away with silliness on their userpages under a couple of conditions: first, that they've actually done something useful to the project, and second, that they not be trying to sneak unacceptable articles in the back door. This one failed on both counts. [[User:DragonflySixtyseven|DS]] ([[User talk:DragonflySixtyseven|talk]]) 15:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 ==Enzymes==

Revision as of 15:08, 24 March 2010

Intro

Procedure

Archives

Welcome

Just in case your idea of npov .......

That's good

THAT IS UNDERSTOOD

Essay

Moonpod DRV

Tay Zonday

Allegations of Chinese apartheid AfD

Deletion note

Re: Wikipedia:Template the regulars

Our project

Shamrock (comics) copyvio

Tagging of Hell Date

Songs from Les Misérables

Lilly Arbor Project

SEE Earth

Coordinates

Tagging of River City Jim

template question

Inquiring about user's identities

CSD AutoReason Updated

Male Porno Articles. I need you help

Deletion review discussion notification of Flyaow - you participated in the discussion regarding this deletion

Problem with my username

Nn-warn template

db-bio template

TfD nomination of Template:Prod-2

{{Oldprodfull}}

AfD nomination of Patrick Combs

Dawn Wells

updating a page on your userspace

RTFM pointers for Flag templates

Deletion review for Talk:1906 (film)

Please return to WikProject Media franchises

Date Ranges

AfD nomination of Teratophilia

Date of birth

Is this account still active?

Kurz and Allison

Speedy deletion declined: Leandro Vieria

Factoryase

Yettaw AfD

Tagging of Barracuda atomic

Tagging of Natalie Bennett

FYI on A7 tag

Reply at User_talk:Deon

Orphaned non-free media (File:UAS_Laboratories_Logo.png)

Talkback

( List of ) Alumni, Principals and Teachers of The Rajkumar College,Rajkot- RKCians

Talkback

User:Bdfjhkgi Deletion

From Patelurology2 - see Prior section (list of) Alumni of Rajkumar College, Rajkot.... two additions

Adminship

I.C.

Deletion Proceedings for Rajkumar College List page- also see other two sections above

I agree with you...

Royall Advertising

In view of your expertise

Hi!!

The Tides Of Time

socialtext

SEEBURGER revision

A thanks

Biscuit and Biscuit (bread)

United States Antarctic Territory

Sarah Ryan of Good Counsel

Oh, hey...

Thnx

Mass deletions and restorations

Your block of Kevin

Notification

Spelling

Barnstar

Thanks...

Barnstar

Deletion complaint moved from talk page header: University of N&Z West