User talk:Delldot
Thanks again for your help with nuthatch. jimfbleak (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- No probs, you certainly earned that star this time! Congrats Jimfbleak. What's your next conquest? :P delldot talk 05:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
List of Iowa county courthouses
hello! do me a favour and look at this list: list of Iowa county courthouses.looks deletable to me, but ,again, i can't decide under what criterion. it doesn't really contain any info other than that each courthouse is located in the county of the same name. seems like one sentence in a list of counties would pretty much cover it. comme toujours, merci et paix. Toyokuni3 (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- I would take it to AfD with WP:NOT#DIR and notability concerns. I would expect the only sources you'd find for this would be primary (or trivial; hence the notability concern). It looks like it may be a work in progress, so you may want to ask the author(s) about their plans and request citations. I can take it to AfD myself if you like, but I'm going to bed now and may not be around much tomorrow. Another good catch Toyokuni, I see you've been keeping that fine Wikipedian instinct sharp! Peace, delldot talk 05:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
RfA Thanks
AI-Wikipage again - deletion or Afd, are these the only options
Hello delldot.
I have got some proposals for speedy deletion or Afd from Skomorokh and Triwbe. I feel I am being manipulated a bit, what is your opinion? - I would like you to say a word in the debate on my talk page if you have time, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anna_Quist#The_debate
(Anna Quist (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC))
Message to Delldot, Maxim and Triwbe about cooperation to improve the AI-Wiki-page
As you well know, the AI-Wiki-page is once more deleted, this time by Bjweeks on a request from Hoary. I have written to them at their talkpages about cooperation to achieve an AI-Wiki-page that has general Wiki-consent, before publishing it again. Copies of these messages are on my talk page. Take a look at them. As AI is the largest anarchist-network in the world, it of course should have a Wiki-page. I invite you all to contribute to a better AI-Wiki-page for later publishing. This time so good that it will not be deleted by anyone. (Anna Quist (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC))
- Sorry to hear it was deleted after all that work you put in. But if you recall, I've told you several times what I thought it needed in order not to be deleted (inline citations to reliable, third party sources), and you went ahead with the move to the mainspace without it. I assume this is because it wasn't possible to provide: the reliable sources don't cover the group substantially enough to back up the claims made in the article. I think you should wait until the organization has been substantially covered in more sources. If it's really notable, it won't be long before newspapers and other reliable sources cover it. Peace, delldot talk 16:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Copyright again
i have an interesting and useful tidbit for you. if a print piece was published prior to 1978, without copyright notice, it is considered to be in the public domain. neat, huh? see : Editing Image: Bovet August 1944.jpg] i give up. anyway, that's where it is .Toyokuni3 (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting, I didn't know that. Where is that? Or is it reevery country? delldot talk 22:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Jabba here
I've done some copyediting on PTE, and left another laundry list... Should be almost there by now. JFW | T@lk 10:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey! The peer review got archived! Is that automatic or something. Fainites barley 14:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's done by a bot, they just don't want it taking up so much space on the WP:PR page or it would never load for people with slow connections. I would carry on editing the page as normal, or you can maybe add the link to the page back to WP:PR (not transcluded though). At this point you're more likely to get reviews from people you ask anyway, so I don't see why having it on the main PR page would help much anyway. If you want you can un-archive it on the talk page, but I would just carry on. (Note that I don't actually know what I'm talking about, this is just my instinct). Let me know when you're ready for more input! Peace, delldot talk 15:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll see if I can unarchive it to the talkpge I think. That seems simplest. By the way - the GA nomination was for Attachment therapy not attachment theory. I'm hoping to get Attachment theory up to FAC. I'll get back to you when I want more pr on the theory, (unless you fancied a quick GA review of Attachment therapy? It keeps failing for being too detailed.)Fainites barley 18:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, whoops. I'll let someone more familiar with psych do the GA review. Sounds good about un-archiving, let me know when you're ready for more input. Peace, delldot talk 18:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
OK done!
I am Done with this editing. Since most people know him as Karim Nagi, can you just move it to Karim Nagi(with capital letter, not like before)? Thank you!! Usagi14 (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Done! Karim nagi and Karim Nagi Mohammed are now redirects to Karim Nagi. I recommend citing any press coverage of the musician directly (rather than linking to a page of press coverage). Better would be to use the material that's been published on him to back up specific facts in the articles (using inline citations, see WP:FOOT). I'm still not totally convinced about notability (we're pretty strict about it here because a lot of people add articles on non-notable stuff, so you've gotta make your claim of notability pretty iron-clad). I'm logging off for today but I'm glad to help with anything you need. Just leave me a note. Peace, delldot talk 18:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I am actually using the articles to show his notability in The Boston Area cause it was one of the criteria in the notability article you sent me. He is actually very well known among the Arabic music lovers in the states and in the world, but Arab musicians don't get a lot of coverage...for some reason...so that is a little harder to prove.
I don't know if I should include them all though. I included already his Discography which includes two international released CD's (on top of many national released CD's) by a major label. That was another of the criteria. He is also a pioneer in his field. I understand you have to be strict though, but let me know if you still doubt his notability. I would not be writing this article if I was not sure of his relevance :)
I will keep editing. I am about half way. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!Usagi14 (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Good going, thanks for all the work you've put in and for being conscientious about the notability concerns. A couple comments (I hope you don't think I'm being too picky with these): I'd put the assertion of notability (his "claim to fame", whatever info you have about how he meets notability) right in the lead, the first part of the article above the section header. Not only will this make the notability less likely to be challenged, it's good practice for writing an encyclopedia article to explain why the subject is important. Second, I would provide inline citations to the claims of notability in the body of the article (the rest of the article other than the lead) to reliable, independent sources. I would provide inline citations to the references you have (ideally using the <ref></ref> tags with a {{Reflist}} tag under ==References==). Especially since you can't tell from the titles of some of them how much they cover the subject (e.g. The Dancing Cymbalist looks like a good source, but I don't know whether it mentions his name in a sentence or devotes a chapter to him). Last, can you link directly to an online version of the Boston Globe articles from its own site? I think there might be a copyright problem with linking to the copies of them on the karimnagi site (obviously, the Boston Globe isn't going to sue karimnagi.com, but we need to be very strict about respecting copyright on Wikipedia because it's such a big project dedicated to providing free content. I think WP:EL has a better explanation for why we can't link to copyright violations). If you can't find an online version of the articles from the globe to link to, you'll probably have to remove the links altogether (which would be too bad). In that case, it would be an especially good idea to provide the inline citations. Anyway, looks good so far, thanks for the hard work in producing this quality piece! delldot talk 14:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thank you again! I'll try to get that done. The Boston globe has the articles online but you have to pay to access them!:( That is why i linked to the other page, so yes probably there would be copyright problems. I'll fix. I'll try to do the citations. You have told me that before, but, as you can tell, this is my first article so it is taking me a while to get used to the code, so I avoided it for a while. I will work on it though.
Thank you for your help! I keep working... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usagi14 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok done for today...almost finished. I Just plan to re-read and fix minor mistakes now. is it better with the inline citations? I tried to justify as much as I could. I hope I did it the right way!
Thanks!Usagi14 (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the inline citations are great! The more the merrier, of course. The only other advice I have (if you're not already sick of it from me :P) would be to be careful to stay neutral, avoiding words like 'revive' which may be too glowing. Good work! delldot talk 01:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
mental status examination
I again placed a neuropsych. exam in this section. If no one ereases it, I'll add additional data as time allows. Thanks for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.199.141 (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, I'm glad it went well! You never heard back from the person who removed it? Let me know if it does end up getting removed again and we'll talk it over with them. Peace, delldot talk 13:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Did you see the notes left by the two professionals that have been working on the article at Neuropsychiatric evaluation? They're good folks, I'm sure it won't be a problem, but I recommend talking it over with them so everyone can agree. Let me know if you need any help or anything! delldot talk 13:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
PTE
Fittingly promoted. Well done on the hard work. JFW | T@lk 21:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
More please! (I've left a message for JeanMercer about the criticism bit but she's away for a few days). I've put the peer review at the bottom of the ordinary talkpage. Fainites barley 21:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Delldot. —CycloneNimrod told me you might be interested in contributing to this article. I found it in a pretty neglected state a few days ago and spent a few hours adding to it. I haven't got all the references tied together yet but will take a break for a few days until —CycloneNimrod finishes some of his/her typographical and style edits. (I hate the way most of the good references I'd wanted to use are protected by the big library services. I'm having to sort through more generally available references. I'm using some medline news articles but that service is available for free registration, unlike springerlink, et cetera.)
S/he said you like to work on content editing so I should mention it to you in case you're interested. The article has a lot of good stuff left to do so I'll be coming back in a few days or weeks and doing some more. From the looks of your to-do list I wouldn't want to try to ask you for any huge amount of editing, but who knows you might be inspired? Maybe that's why you eat peanut butter, to keep up the energy for marathon edits?
I may tackle Hospitalism next. Its in pretty sad shape. Ooops...I shouldn't have said that, now you'll want to do it!
Anyway, thanks, whether or not you're interested. Reading your bio was fun.Trilobitealive (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Pleasure to make your acquaintance Trilobite. Aak, you found out about the peanut butter! Shhh, don't tell anyone! About Neurodevelopmental disorders, sure, sounds fun! I don't know anything about the topic, but I can probably get access to some journals if you find any abstracts that look good. Have you looked in biomedcentral? They have a lot of open access articles, and a lot with free images we can use. I'll put the article on my massive to do list (it's actually the shortest it's been in a long time, you should have seen it before I cut some of my losses!) What do you think of moving it to Neurodevelopmental disorder to be more in line with the naming conventions? delldot talk 02:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about throwing that at you, Delldot, I just vaguely remembered you having an interest in neurological stuff? —CycloneNimrodT@lk? 11:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with naming conventions for medical articles, so do whatever is best. I'm not an administrator so I don't usually move articles.Trilobitealive (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC) (BTW, my expansion of —CycloneNimrod's few remarks is a graphic example of my tendency to WP:SYN, which is the main reason I'm asking for editing help...so I don't go to far in that direction.)Trilobitealive (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- On the contrary Cyclone, thanks for introducing us, I like meeting and working with new folks. I do like neurology, but the only area I know anything about is trauma.
- Don't hesitate to ask any questions if you have any Trilobite. Don't be shy about moving pages, you don't need to be an admin. If you'd like the practice, try moving it to the singular (it's not a medical article specific thing, but i believe titles are generally singular unless the word is usually used in the plural (e.g. scissors). Peace, delldot talk 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
SAH typo
Ah, thanks for that :) When I start adding content to an article, it seems the grammatical side of me goes to sleep! —CyclonenimT@lk? 17:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hehe, no problem. In other news, what do you think about working traumatic brain injury up to GA and possibly FA at some point in the distant future? It would involve adding tons of references and paring out tons of crap. delldot talk 17:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sure I'd love too :) I'll get working on it next week, perhaps, I'm a little busy socially at the moment (a rare break from work!) as well as awaiting my exam results (decides whether I do medicine or not!) —CyclonenimT@lk? 21:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Deletionist tendency
i think i may be a latent deletionist. see this: The Damned United, and give me your take on movies yet to be made. pax vobiscum.Toyokuni3 (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- I may not be the best person to ask, because I have an odd take on notability. To me, notability isn't that important, it's all about the verifiability. So if the article's about some dude's cat or some kid making YouTube videos in his basement, but it's been significantly covered in multiple reliable sources, it's verifiable so it stays (Who are we to say what's important?). Similarly (and this is what gets me into trouble) if it's on a well-known subject but the article cites crap for references, we have a problem. I don't know whether I'd be classed a deletionist, but I guess I'm kind of a radical in that I think that just because a topic deserves an article, doesn't mean we should keep the one we have on it (although ideally we'd try to fix it up). From that perspective, I'd say this article is ok; it's got solid refs from sources like BBC News. The ones I checked, checked out (supported the claims in the article). It may be boredering on crystal ballery with statements like "Sony will release the film in 2009", but something like "the producer has predicted that Sony will release the film in 2009" are perfectly ok (assuming a source is provided to back that up). So that's my take. Peace, delldot talk 15:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm away for a week from tomorrow - internet access unlikely. I'll get stuck in when I get back. Fainites barley 21:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)