User talk:Dpmuk

Professional Inline Hockey Association

I see that you have a fascination with keeping very small articles alive. Most of the team pages within the PIHA do not qualify as encyclopedic because they contain very little information. I think if you were to work with me and others, we could expand these pages to make them better.Keystoneridin (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Epitome of Pantalgia

Can you tell my why it wasn't eligible for speedy A7? I'm confused. FireCrystal (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, seems like I didn't get the whole gist of the criteria and what you can or not do, such as adding back the speedy tag after someone other than the author had removed it. You say that it includes articles about albums and it was indeed an album (or demo I could say but close enough). I knew A9 wasn't acceptable so I went with A7 as the other meaningful option. I wasn't thinking at the time that I could just redirect it because I was just thinking that it was merely non-notable. Also, the artist's page is undergoing AFD and may need to be deleted anyway through A9 if it doesn't survive it. I don't think I will have any more problems in the future. Thank you. FireCrystal (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Schools

Do you have a link to the AfD which says schools are notable? CTJF83Talk 22:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. CTJF83Talk 22:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

¿Are you an Administrator?

I would like to know if you are an administrator.

You removed a Speedy deletet tag I placed in the article LGBT rights in the Dominican Republic which said that Homosexuality is legal by law. That article is from an organization which claims that homosexuality is legal by law the Dominican Republic, and that is not so. There is no law in our Code or Constitution concerning homosexuality acceptances. I just edited the article stating so, but that is not enough because the D. R. stays within the rest of the countries which recognizes that right. Because I don´t want to be blocked again, I really don´t know for sure if I can revert and put back the tag so to avoid that I will alert others administrators about what you did. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable crashes?

Hi - you deleted the speedy delete tag on an old Italian crash - the article was just a few sentences and there was no notability in it. Do you happen to know what makes a plane crash notable, or are they all de facto? Alice (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Just fyi, I encountered the same thing, and manually added an RfC, but then the next day it had been automatically added as well. Apparently the bot isn't doing it within one hour. So you just might want to keep your eye on it that it doesn't show up twice. Dlabtot (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Short story notability

I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Short story? that you may wish to comment on. NJGW (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Darren_Stanley

Thanks for the input on the Darren Stanley page. I reviewed the Notability_(academics) criteria and it seems that this individual does not merit an entry for academic notability. I've changed the tag to proposed delete so we can can get some input one way or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndowning (talk • contribs) 00:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

My second "delete" to 1881 Boundary Treaty was a mistake. Sorry. --Keysanger (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Blå Jungfrun National Park

Thanks for removing the CSD tag. I didn't notice it was about the island as well. Sorry. TheLeftorium 21:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Burridge

Thanks for your message. On reflection, I agree with you that the speedy deletion was not justified. I deleted the article because I believed that the claim to be the youngest ever Parliamentary candidate in the UK was not credible - "almost certainly incorrect", in my phrase. I mentioned the lack of independent references, since I felt that would have lent some credibility to the claim, even though I believed it to be incorrect. However, my belief that the claim was not credible was because I misremembered and believed that the minimum age for a candidate had been lowered to 18 prior to the last general election. As it is, Burridge may well be the youngest candidate for the UK Parliament in the modern era, and while the claim made in the article wasn't quite clear, it could be interpreted that way (there was a candidate for the Northern Ireland Assembly who may have been younger, and the requirement for candidates to be 21 hasn't always been in place - Christopher Monck, 2nd Duke of Albemarle was elected at the age of 13 and left when he was 16!). You say in your message that you are happy to let the speedy deletion stand, but if you would like me to restore it and put it through AfD instead, I will be happy to so. Warofdreams talk 18:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Please assume good faith, be civil and remember that you don't own articles pages

Dpmuk, I bear responsibility for every word I write. I wish other participants in these discussions could do that, too. Also, I think these discussions can be of some use only if they are focused on encyclopedic subjects, and less emotional. Witizen (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

Witizen

Hi! I (sort of) answered your message to Witizen here. Just thought I'd let you know :) Jafeluv (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation. I understand your concerns. Sorry for stepping on your toes there. Jafeluv (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by "volatile nature of the edits to this article" (Wirtland (micronation))? Thanks! Rich church mouse (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Rich Church Mouse

Genome Wager

Thanks for fixing my mistake on the CSD. After reviewing it, I realized that I had tagged it wrongly and it should have perhaps instead gone to AFD. I've had a brief conversation with the creator, and have left it as is with tags for improvement. My apologies for screwing that one up! Frmatt (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Seventh Brother

Its now pretty much been confirmed that OckhamTheFox was acting on the behest of one Bambifan101's socks per a request at the Russian Wikipedian. [1][2] Can this now be deleted as a creation by a bannded user by proxy? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright tag

Thank you for your message. My apologies regarding the mistaken placement of that tag.

BWH76 (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

 Done for you. Please rememeber to read WP:ROLLBACK and ask me if you need any help. Pedro :  Chat  22:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No probs - glad to be of service. Pedro :  Chat  22:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Swansea Cork Ferries

Seems that this redirected / deleted page has been reinstated.... again.... (third time!!) It contains nothing notable, no supporting references, and (as far as I can see) has no point - as all of the verifiable info (and some more) is already on the page Swansea Cork Ferry Nobullman (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the latest edit to Swansea Cork Ferries. Brand new editor... no previous record on Wiki... could be 'innocent newness' or 'vandalism/sock-puppetry' Will continue watching. Nobullman (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Same editor reverted link again last night - but it was soon reinstated. Still thinking 'good faith'? Nobullman (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick note

Blocking is different from banning. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 16:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion tags on Christel articles

Thanks for the heads up, I had missed the schools exemption form the criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

John E.S. Lawrence

To conform with WP COI guidelines, and to correct misimpressions, let me confirm that my over 100 professional publications, op-eds etc. - for most of which I have been credited as sole or senior author - have been developed over forty years, and are readily available on request. Only a selection (plus some independent references) have been included in earlier communications with WP editors. Furthermore, the reference cited below incorrectly as blank does in fact refer directly to a German citation of my work, see http://de.scientificcommons.org/john_e_s_lawrence Jeslw (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

When you removed the speedy delete template from John E.S. Lawrence, you gave the following rationale for doing so in the edit summary:

"He's a full professor with over 100 publucations (according to links) - to me that is enough indication of possible notability to avoid speedy especially when taken with talk page comments."

• The article never says that he is full professor. In fact, it explicitly and clearly states that he is an ADJUNCT professor. This makes me think you didn't even read the article before you removed the template.

• The article itself makes no claims that any of his work has ever been published, and it certainly doesn't claim that he's been published anywhere near 100 times.

• Even on the talk page, he does not claim that he's been published over 100 times. The talk page actually says that: "More than 100 webpages refer to the varied exploratory, professional work and other contributions of John E S Lawrence." If you go through the 15 or links posted, they include things such as:
  • email lists,
  • publications written by others that merely mention his name once,
  • publications written by others that don't even mention him once,
  • a blog written by one of his friends, where his friend mentions that John Lawrence sent him an email.
  • the results page of a search program if you type in "John E.S. Lawrence" (the results page, by the way, is blank) [3]
  • a web page that says that during the summer of 1967 John Lawrence worked at an outdoor educational camp for children.

• Virtually all academics write scholarly works to be published in academic journals. It's a basic part of their job description, and so just doing it does not in itself make them notable. Having the things written about an academic in publications would be evidence of notability, but simply being published is not.

It would only take a couple minutes for you to go back, read the article again, and then add the speedy delete template back to the article so that editors won't have to waste their time going through the articles for deletion process.

Thanks lots!Dgf32 (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Right the first issue is that what I left as an edit comment was obviously a short summary of my reasoning. In reply to your specific points.

• I had read the page and notice that he was an adjunct professor. While searching for his name I came across this page that claims he's a adjunct full professor.
• No the article doesn't make the claim about 100 publications but one of the links given clearly does.
• My comment about the talk page mainly refers to him appearing to have a mountain complex named after him.

Taken together I think there is enough indication there as to why he may be notable to not be speedied. I never thought the article was likely to surivive WP:PROD (unless removed by the author) or WP:AfD however the notabality and verifiability standards to pass speedy are much lower than for other deletions due to the lack of discussion. In this case I thought, and still do think, that this article deserved the longer time frame of prod or AfD to give people a chance to find sources if they exist - I don't think this is likely but I've seen it happen in the past on articles that I thought weren't going to survive. Dpmuk (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That's reasonable. It seemed arbitrary at first glance, which triggered the response, but I'm glad it wasn't. Thanks for taking the time to respond! Dgf32 (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(As an aside, the web page with the CV stating that he's an "Adjunct (Full) Professor" is pure self-promotion at best and academic dishonesty at worst. The terms "full professor", "associate professor", and "assistant professor" refer only to tenured and tenure-track faculty. Since an adjunct professor is a non-tenure track, part-time, temporary, non-salaried position, the terms full, associate, and assistant professors don't apply.) Dgf32 (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Being British I'm not fully aware of all the ins and outs of how American universities name their positions so I may have made a mistake there. I was aware that the page was quite self-promotional but sources don't have to be reliable (indeed you don't really need them at all) to avoid speedy. Dpmuk (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked through your contribs Dpmuk, 90% of the work you do is good, I just wish you would consider bringing some of that other 10% to AfD instead of just drive-by-untagging some articles with really marginal notability. Gigs (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I do wonder if I should do more of this but I often don't have the time to investigate the subject properly and I firmly believe that someone making an AfD nomination should have done a good faith search for sources first. I may try to more often leave messages for the edit who added the speedy. Dpmuk (talk) 11:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Gigs (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:User talk:Liljay23

Hi Dpmuk. You're absolutely right! This does seem very strange. I have found a more appropriate block notice and have made the appropriate changes. Thanks for letting me know. Best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

That's fine. Airplaneman ^talk 20:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Irbisgreif (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Precious time and its management

I lazily didn't change the tag, my apologies. It's unencyclopaedic, how-to and either WP:OR or a copy from an unknown source. do you want me to restore? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

In addition, please continue to comment on my actions and let me know if you feel I'm improving. (Or not). Irbisgreif (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin closure

Hi! Per this: There's no need to state "no admin closure" in a move discussion. As you see by following the link, Wikipedia:Non-admin closure is just used for deletion discussions (which should be closed by admins except in special cases). Move discussions can be closed by any uninvolved user. Just wanted to let you know :) Jafeluv (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Hello , sorry i fumbled at my deletion attempts in Kabilleti and others.Those pages are on thracian tribes that dont exist nor did they ever.I cant find them anywhere.There were others listed that were names of hairstyles(yes its true) and other irrelevant things .Megistias (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Side question

This is kind of a side question that I've been wondering about re: the RfC option #2. What if no good adjective exists for the country in question? Do we default back to the country name for those countries? An example is Trinidad and Tobago. "Trinidadian and Tobagonian" is possible, I suppose, but the approach for most categories has been to just use "Trinidad and Tobago FOO". So under #2 would it be "American – Trinidad and Tobago relations"? Or something else? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a good question and I was thinking of making 2 say where possible at the end. Have updated the RfC to suggest that will we probably need further discussion about this issue if 2 is chosen - let's get consensus on the larger issue first and cross this bridge if we have to (i.e. 2 is chosen). Dpmuk (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Protection templates on unprotected pages

I was just doing my regular cleanup of Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. On that page I clean up every day some 15 pages, including a few templates and userpages. See also Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Templates. Debresser (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Consumer Watchdog (USA)#Survey

Hello! Please see my reply in the discussion. (You appear to have misunderstood the proposal.) Thanks! —David Levy 04:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Warning

DO NOT revert the links until the issue is resolved. Sarah777 (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)