User talk:Rossami

More on Category:DOB missing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you mind moving the log page for today to its proper name? 2006 November 30, if compared to the other subpages, is completely wrong. And sadly, I'm on enforced Wikibreak until at least tomorrow. 24.89.197.136/Logical2u on Enforced Wikibreak22:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Also, my User-talk page was probably not the best place to leave your reply (As I am on enforced wikibreak). I didn't have time to check the other pages, but since the header was inconsistent I assumed the page name was also inconsistent... Sorry to bother you. 24.89.197.136/Logical2u on Enforced Wikibreak01:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

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

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

Help on a deletion review

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

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

Chaos Magic term first used?

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

re: Eric Devendorf

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

Growing Degree Days - Question

Dear Rossami,

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

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

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

Kind regards Andreas

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

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

Foundation level

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

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

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

Jenni Olson

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

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

Rewrite

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

Merger of "Companies and Corporations" with "Organizations"

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

Merging Notability pages Organizations and Companies

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

re.chainfall or Chain Fall

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

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

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

re:

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

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

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

Langstroth hive and beespace

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

House Jack

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

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

Don Roberts

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

Old discussion revived

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

Bees and inebriation

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

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

Bees and myths

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

YOB missing

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

re: Ralph Alvarez DOB missing

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

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

Dates of Birth

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

Nbsp in section header

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

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

re: DRV notice

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

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

About Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_24#List_of_literary_works_with_eponymous_heroines

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

Proposed merger - Organizations & Companies

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

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

Notability Companies

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

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

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

e-mail

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

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

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

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

CSD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Images listed for deletion

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

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

WP:NOT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

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

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

Cheers for "Fortuna saga" edit history

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

Kiwi Camara thanks!

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

Criticisms

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

Your comment on RfD WP:CIVAL

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

Jose Rodriguez (activist) restored

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

Proposal for Notification

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

Paul Staines

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

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

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

CCD

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

(disambig) → <disambiguation page>

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

For the people

I posted to the talk page. I had received positive feed back on that section... and asked for more clarification on the talk page. Barring other people disagreeing I'll re-add it to the essay page (which is a collaborative essay by others as well). thanks. - Denny 23:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natural History of South Asia mailing list

This article is up for deletion can you kindly share your opinion on it [3] .

Thanks in advance Atulsnischal 21:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion process

Your current header pretty much implies the page is policy. I dissent that it has "strong consensual support", in particular the bits at the bottom about relisting and non-admin closure (which arguably belong on another page anyway) and the top bit about COI. These parts are worded way too strongly and people have been taking them for literal formal prescriptions lately. >Radiant< 14:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think the closing instructions are definitely guideline material (per strong consensual suppotr, as you claim, and because that's simply the way we do things). I'd suggest removing the other bits, and discussing their addition to some other page. >Radiant< 14:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles about ongoing enterprises

Dino, a Free Republic activist, adopted the policy and filled up the talk page with his perspective and the reactions to it. I put that stuff in an archive and restored the original talk page which discusses the issue in more general terms. Fred Bauder 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way we are going to have a puff piece about Free Republic, Discussion of the general topic in the context of Free Republic distorts the discussion. I don't know how to get this back on track. Fred Bauder 02:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this diff

([4]). Thanks. --Dweller 13:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ADERANT

Could you please explain why you decided to delete my comment in the above Afd? Cheers Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 14:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that sounds well harsh, sorry, I was just wondering if there was a specific reason for it, or was it just a mistake, I'm not going to readd my comment until I understand if there was an issue with it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 14:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for readding the comment, I just didn't want togo against your actions if there was a proper reason for it, god damn wiki-software! Thanks again, and hope theres no hard feelings Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFD#POVDelete

Thank you for your willingness to contribute to the article, but a POV tag doesn't just get removed because someone replies. A POV tag gets removed once consensus is reached that the section is NOPV. If you would like to continue the disussion, feel free to do so. McKay 14:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

Can Pulley have some kind of protection against this continuous vandalism? VanBurenen 21:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beaner (2nd nomination)

I responded to you on that page. Could you please clarify your position? Thanks! :-) —David Levy 20:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! —David Levy 23:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandalism warning

Hi! I use the old {{subst:test}} template, which comes by default with Twinkle. When I started RC patrol, someone gave me a link to the TestTemplates (now I see that it's deprecated), I believe you'll be able to find the source here [5]. Cheers! - Myanw 16:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I use Twinkle which regroups several scripts, I'm afraid I have no clue which one is responsible for the templates used to warn. But I guess you could ask a question on the project's talk page, I perused it quickly and it seems you're the first one to express this concern (but I could have missed something). I'm sorry if I'm not really helpful here, I don't know anything about JavaScript but I sure hope you'll find a solution, please keep me posted, I'd like to know if you succeeded. Keep up the good work! - Myanw 20:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I updated my monobook with the latest version of Twinkle and it does look a lot different... I warned a user, the templates aren't what they used to be, I think they're way better, see this edit. Is it better? - Myanw 23:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Robin Murphy

Please see the talk page for comments on your recent changes to this article. Abridged ^talk 14:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Please give a third opinion at Talk:Chinaman. You may also want to read English language names for Chinese people beforehand. Uncle G 17:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jacob Johnson

Thanks for restoring this. It is on my watchlist, but it must have been quickly deleted, because I never noticed the vandalism (and I try to check things daily). Goes to show how quick things can happen! -- Mike Helms 00:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nutshells

I won't object to your revision, but what's wrong with summaries? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 00:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good, case closed. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 03:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public companies

Please provide a single example of a US public company (of any recent vintage) that has not been mentioned by two or more independent media. Each has been mentioned by the SEC, and most by CNN Finance, Yahoo Finance, and (if you delve deeper in time) Forbes, Fortune, Value Line, among others. Just looking for an existence proof of a US public company failing WP:CORP as it now reads. Carlossuarez46 07:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, let's see what I could (quickly) find on the companies you mention:

AbleAuctions.com Inc has a free whole write-up about its business by Reuters (a usually reliable source) that can be found here and if you click the analyst tag near the top it brings you here where you can purchase (sources need not be free, as we do quote from non-public domain books, periodicals, etc.) more.

Helios & Matheson North America Inc has similar, just type in its symbol at the links above.

CET Services, Inc, ditto.

Frisch's Restaurants, Inc, ditto.

Action Products International, Inc, ditto.

This is just quickly what I could find through Google finance portal, I suspect there's more out there, but for each of these there are at least 2 independent sources: Reuters and whoever authored the analyses for sale. There is also Yahoo and CNN finance. E.g., back to AbleAuctions.com, Yahoo's page can be found here that has a profile and a corporate governance report from ISS (the organization that assists institutional investors decide how to vote their shares), and more links to more pages. CNN/Money finance here has a profile, lots of statistics, and more links. I didn't check the other 4 companies at Yahoo and CNN but I would find it strange if they didn't have a similar spread. So we have 4 sources now for at least AbleAuctions, and certainly 2 for the others.

Because Reuters, Yahoo, CNN, the analyst business all strive for completeness, I would assume we would have 4 sources for all US public companies. Although that's a leap of logic that may be unwarranted, until now it's not disproven. I think that I'm right on this, so we should either just use public company as a short-cut for notability (as the schools have done with high schools, rather than fight over each one, and the geographic folks have done with inhabited places regardless of how small) or revise WP:CORP to tighten down the requirement. I think that there is merit in having more articles on businesses but as an encyclopedia we are not an investment tool and no matter how Wiki we may be, we'll never having streaming quotes. ;-) Carlossuarez46 17:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

framing merge proposal

Please see Talk:Framing (sociology). - Grumpyyoungman01 14:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nane Maria Annan

Page created under different name.--Vaya 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney A. Smolla

I just thought I'd drop you a note that I noticed you proposed this article for deletion and it was in fact deleted. I'm not sure that your rationale is really appropriate for Prod versus AfD, but that's not why I'm writing. I am writing to tell you that I understand your concern but that Smolla is certainly a notable law professor. You'll soon be able to discern that by reading the article. It's my understanding that the admin who helped me by undeleting the article is going to place it up for AfD, so please feel free to share your opinion in that forum. Erechtheus 00:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he's not notable, I just don't understand what we're suggesting needs to be asserted for somebody to be notable. I have the Village Voice and the LA Times citing him as an expert. I have him arguing in front of the Supreme Court. I have him as the Dean of a top 25 and a top 100 law school. I have him writing three published books and contributing to a widely read legitimate online magazine. I'll acknowledge that I didn't do a good job pointing this out the first time around, but I'm correcting that now. I'm not trying to just write a series of articles about my old law professors, but this guy is a star and is deserving. With all of that said, I'd be happy to accept some guidance. Erechtheus 01:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the in-depth comment. It demonstrates that there is still a lot of documented information I know of but clearly have not demonstrated based on your response. Smolla has published a total of 12 books. The three I'm speaking of are his books targeted at a mass audience. I could go on point by point, but it's best I spend that time improving the article. I'm more confident than ever that I'm right about the notability of the subject, but it's apparent that I'm just not doing a good enough job of explaining it yet. I'll get it there, though. Thanks again. Erechtheus 01:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it may be helpful to me if you'd be willing to give me your feedback on Garrett Epps. Based on what you have written, I think your position would be that this article is also in trouble in terms of notability. I'm not trying to get into the game where an author trying to defend his work points at other bad articles, but it would be helpful as a sanity check if you'd be willing to confirm there isn't something I'm just not getting that makes Epps notable while Smolla is not clearly notable. Erechtheus 02:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bt and Nosema and CCD

I attempted a modified post in the Diseases_of_the_honey_bee#Nosema to link to the Colony_Collapse_Disorder#Genetically_modified_crops_.28GMO.29 which informs the general discussion to bring it to. This kind of relationship - one disease that may be related to CCD is also at Diseases_of_the_honey_bee#Deformed_Wing_Virus_.28DWV.29 Rather than just deleting the reference there should be room for some middle ground. I was attempting to find it.--Smkolins 13:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some significant statement should be crafted to the Christian Science article - which might bring more to light it the author feels he has valid sources.--Smkolins 18:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDNotice

Thank you for your recent change to the AfDNotice template. The purpose of putting AfDNotice as a template is to help prevent vandalism; watching the template for changes is far easier than watching the changelog of AfD (!!). Your change, while appreciated and done in good faith, is counterproductive, in my opinion. As such, I'd ask you to restore the template and bring up a discussion on the template's talk page, where interested editors can help determine the correct placement of the text therein. Jouster (whisper) 16:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem remarkably defensive. I would contend that I have, at most, assumed ignorance. Certainly not bad faith--indeed, "done in good faith" is a direct quote from the paragraph above. If it is the judgment of the community that the template should be inlined, I certainly will not undo it. But, having seen no discussion of this effort taking place anywhere, let alone on the template's talk page, I was forced to conclude you were being bold and misinformed. I'm sorry if that conclusion upsets you, but it, like your edit, was made in good faith. Jouster (whisper) 20:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CCD and cellphones

Hi. Please stop reverting away the cellphones bit on the CCD article. Why? Because under wikipedia:No Original Research, it is not our job to evaluate competing theories before including it. The fact that the theory, however silly it may be, has been shown in a fairly major press source is enough to warrant a mention - at least a mention that it has been put forward as a suggestion.

Think of it another way. If a reader finds that explanation missing from the article, what would he think? If the theory has problems, or has been discredited, then the right thing to do is to mention the theory, together with the rebuttal, the problems with the limited study, the contradictory evidence and so on, so that the reader can judge for himself whether the idea has credence.--Fangz 21:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second Fangz' comments. Arjuna 05:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS

Please reverse your action of archiving the talk page of WP:NOTNEWS. I was about to refer to it today in an AFD which relates to the distinction between "encyclopedic" and "newsworthy." Having the entire talk page archived just serves to hide the discussions which went on there and to make them less accessible. It is annoying for editors to have to go through the extra step of entering the archive to see what was said, and it is difficult to add to what was said because of the absence of the prior discussion, and we cannot add any additional comment to what was said in one of the topics while it is in the archive. Since the proposal was beaten to death with rejected and essay tags, the pace of posting has fallen off greatly. I expect that it could go for quite some time before archiving is necessary. Is there a way to unarchive, besides me copying everything in the archive and pasting it to the present discussion page, which appears to be my oinly recourse? Thanks. Edison 16:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hoplophobia

I noticed your sig in the discussion of Gun politics. One other user and I are having a disagreement about Hoplophobia and I think that the discussion would benefit from more people than just the two of us. Check the lengthy discussion page first, if you are up to getting involved. Thanks. —BozoTheScary 17:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Board Candidacy

Hi! I'm leaving you this note because we've had extensive and/or productive interaction over the course of my time on this Wiki. I (yep, little ol' Jouster!) am running for election to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. I would greatly appreciate it if you would please take a look at my submission of candidacy, and consider endorsing me, as that is a requirement for me to stand for election.

If you have any questions or concerns about this notice, please don't hesitate to poke me on my Talk page. If you object to this solicitation for endorsement, please do not hesitate to remove it from your Talk page with my apologies; it will not appear again.

I look forward to serving you all on the Board! Jouster (whisper) 18:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Svidersky

Howdy! Back in May 2006 you participated in an AfD discussion on the Anna Svidersky article. There is currently a Request for comment on the talk page of the Svidersky article aimed at resolving a disagreement over the state of the article and the use of the Anna Svidersky title as a redirect to the Mourning Sickness article that was created during the 2nd Svidersky AfD. I hope you don't mind the interruption. Any additional or outside input would be greatly appreciated by all the editors on the Svidersky page. Thank you for your time. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 14:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#what is a published work ?

Thanks for your answer, it cleared up many interrogations. I tried to explain a bit better what I had meant by th 5th question. Jackaranga 21:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#NEWS

Thanks for the follow up. The link might have been working but the text wasnt appearing, but now they fixed it.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assburger Syndrome

I was thinking about recreating this redirect based on the recent discussion at RFD. Was it intended that Assburger Syndrome be protected? Why should Assburger redirect to Asperger Syndrome but Assburger Syndrome does not. I can't make heads or tails of the protection log, because it seems to indicate that it was unprotected more recently than it was protected. Perhaps it's just as well; it's kind of a touchy topic--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 22:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Assburger's syndrome (with an apostrophe and a lowercase s) also exists as a redirect.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

replied on my talk page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irreducible complexity

I removed the image of the book cover per WP:IFD discussion and based on Wikipedia policy for non-free images. If you do not agree, please take the discussion to deletion review, RFC or ARBCOM but please do not revert the article. Thanks Nv8200p talk 00:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using the image in the articles it was removed from violates WP:NFCC. Discussing fair use of the image has already been done at IFD. This discussion needs to be "moved up the food chain" and let the folks that matter have their say - that probably being the arbitration committee. -Nv8200p talk 01:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

trivia discussion

I think I have it right now, but please check. Thanks. (If not, just do it right) DGG (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Talk page

Why are you removing things from my talk page? — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed. It was neither vandalism nor constructive. I was just curious as to what prompted your edit. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for being the RfD to my attention! — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent WP:RFD votes

I saw your votes on WP:RFD, and because I didn't want to comment on each of them individually, I figured I'd be better off leaving a note here. In my view, template redirects are one of the most useless types of redirects. Rarely do users do a MediaWiki search for a specific template name in which a redirect would help point them to the proper template. When they have no transclusions, they clutter Special:Unusedtemplates and they serve absolutely no purpose. Some of the template redirects that you voted to keep have been around for months. While I sort of maybe could understand wanting to preserve the pagemove history, it really seems both inefficient and backward when it is preserved in the history of the template that actually matters (i.e., the target template). In addition, a lot of these templates were created for specific uses, and so if they don't have any transclusions now, it is very, very likely they will never have any transclusions, simply due to their nature. As for users not seeing the move or not being able to find a specific template, a template's history can't be an accurate indication of whether or not a person is aware that a template has moved. If they "care" about the template that they created or worked on, they would have it on their watchlist. Just my thoughts for you to consider. --MZMcBride 02:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFD

Based on your constant suggestions at RfD, I've noticed that you're probably one of the best experts on the subject. I'm just dropping by to ask a question: I your opinion, how much time is needed for a redirect to be considered sufficiently old to be useful, or vice versa (sufficiently new to be considered fit for deletion)? This is a general question disregarding the individual characteristics of each redirect and RFD discussion. I'm asking because I've found a few cross-namespace redirects which were made in 2007, which are possible candidates for RfD. Thanks. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 10:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 18:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My, I've never seen anyone go to such lengths to explain policies so well. I now (completely) understand your arguments in most RfD debates. The issue that concerns me most is that people are nominating cross-namespace redirects and expecting a WP:SNOW deletion, instead of a non-controversial retarget. I admit I've nominated a few for deletion, but only after trying to considering all aspects and possibilities.

I thank you very much for your help, and I'll take your recommendations to use. As I see it, you're one of the very few editors at RfD who consistently try to save redirects to avoid the problems you mentioned, usually against the tide of the masses. A noble deed.

As a side note, I really recommend that you take the comments placed on my talk page and place it in your own user sub-page as an essay for RfDs. That way, during RfD debates, you don't have to explain all this to other editors, you just link to it. :)- Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 10:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice. Copied to User:Rossami/On redirects. Rossami (talk)

warning format

Hi, I've noticed that you made this change to the talk page of an anon, which undoes the standard warning layout explained in the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings. Do you think the current format at this project should be improved, and if so, how? Thanks for your time, Lisatwo 15:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vampirefreaks AFD bypassed

FYI: in 2005 you closed the AFD on Vampirefreaks and it was deleted. In 2006 it was stealthily recreated as Vampirefreaks.com. I tried to tag it for WP:WEB and primary sources, but they just revert the tags. Since I'm only a wikignome, I'll leave it in your hands and those of the AFD's nominator. 62.147.38.190 06:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the alert. If anyone wants to contest the original deletion here, they are encouraged to do so through the Deletion Review process. Rossami (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VampireFreaks.com

An editor has asked for a deletion review of VampireFreaks.com. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Zazaban 03:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interweaving comments?

Do you have a policy to support your alteration of my comment? I have one that prohibits it: editing other people's comments to change their meaning is against policy. If your objection is my interrupting of another user's comment, the remedy is not to take my remark out of context and put it at the end of the section. --P3d0 21:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks very much for your civil reply. I'll do my best to repair it in a way that will satisfy both of us. --P3d0 02:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFD text

I understand your opposition to "Person X". Would you be opposed to something like "John Smith" or "John Doe"? I'm just trying to be as generic as possible and I'd say "John Smith" would be understood in most of the world to be a generic/example name. -- John Reaves 23:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe who runs a blog sounded pretty generic to me, but no I wouldn't really care. Rossami (talk)

Not a dictionary?

Certainly, but as you may have noticed I haven't had much time for wiking lately. Is this issue still ongoing? >Radiant< 12:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: WP:DELPRO

Good afternoon. At WT:AFD, you said that you saw some ambiguity in the timing clauses of WP:DELPRO. I'm not sure what you're looking at. If you could be more specific, I'll see if we can get it fixed. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, it was some ambiguity in the use of the term "unambiguous". The Guideline says on the one hand: "If you are not familiar with deletion policy or the workings of deletion discussions, it is best that you only close discussions with unambiguous results." (emphasis added) and on the other hand: "Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." These are not the same thing, so I was suggesting that although ambiguity is in fact (at least a major part of) the standard for closing debate by a non-administrator, the Guideline is actually ambiguous on this very point, at least with respect to experienced editors who are "familiar with deletion policy [and] the workings of deletion discussions."--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When I first read your comment, I immediately went to fix the page. The intent is certainly that those two lines mean exactly the same thing. Unfortunately, when I previewed by fix, it was worse than what's there now. After re-reading those two clauses several times, I come back to the conclusion that they are the same thing - once expressed as a positive and once expressed as a negative. I do not interpret the first clause to imply that "if you are familiar ..., then you may close ambiguous discussions." I'm at a loss for how to improve that wording. Do you have a thought?
  By the way, I consider this a technical question that is different from the fundamental question you raised on the process's Talk page. If we can find better wording that expresses the intent with less ambiguity, we can probably be bold and then see if the edit sticks. Rossami (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree it's technical vs substantive. It appears we probably don't see this the same substantively, but that's beside the point. The only problem is that there are at least two ways to "fix" this, depending on the substantive answer one supports. I'm not sure I can "fix" it without imposing my particular angle. One thought I have though is that If you are not familiar with deletion policy or the workings of deletion discussions, you really should go get familiar before you comment on a discussion let alone think about closing a one! Although I oppose the idea that this should be limited to admins, I do think it's important to emphasize that experience and a lot of XfD discussions are really important, and that goes for admins too.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BALLON ANGIOPLASTY

You seem to be saying that my point only holds true for the 'Search' function and not for the 'Go' function, but this is not the case.

While there are differences in case-sensitivity between the 'Search' function and the 'Go' function, the 'Go' function is not entirely case-sensitive. 'Sona Macdonald' doesn't take you to Sona MacDonald if you click 'Go', but 'Sona macDonald' does. And all of 'LEonard bERnStein', 'leonard bernstein', 'LEONARD BERNSTEIN', 'LeONARD BErnsteiN' and 'LEONard bErNsTEin' take you to Leonard Bernstein. —Timeineurope (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice

I have mentioned your username in evidence presented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Your intended administrative action was mentioned as one superior (IMO) to that taken by one of the parties in the case. (Why the actual action was different from your clear intent I've been unable to figure out.) GRBerry 01:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section at Beekeeping

Just commenting on your reversion of my edit of the PETA section. I never said it was nonesense as you have called it in your edit summary. I distinctly used non-NPOV in my summary. My motivation for removing the critisim section? Because it is a form of vandalism. A sophisticated form but vandalism none the less. Do I go over to the PETA page and push my point of view? No I don't. Does every primary producer article or breed article need commentary from PETA on it? Do we all have to become vegetarians? That sort of critisim would not be out of place on the PETA article but it should not (in my opinion) remain in the beekeeping article. I'll tell you what. How about rather than getting into an edit war I move the section to the talk page so that all the editors currently watching and working on the beekeeping article can have input on wether it stays in the beekeeping article or goes? Because I am not going to leave it there unless consensus rules otherwise. Sting_au Talk 04:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks :-) There will probably be a vigorous debate now? Sting_au Talk 05:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Poughkeepsie Tapes

Can you help? I was flailing around trying to figure out how to nominate it for deletion when it had already been AfD Deleted once. Do you how to do that? (I don't.) --Pleasantville (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somerville Ecovillage

Hi Rossami, I am still keen to get a copy of the deleted Somerville Ecovillage article and start from scratch on a new article. There was no copyright violation because I am the original author of both pages. I spent a day researching the references to help with notability and this is what I am after. Your help is much appreciated. Ozneil (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Discussion Ozneil (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect

I really like your point of view that "merge & redirect" is a flavor of "keep" (IMO, it preserves quality content while not bogging down the encyclopedia with cruft.) However, unfortunately, my experience has been different. Any advice? Chardish (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs

Hi thanks for your message regarding my closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gertrude Baines and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Bidwell. I had not given those users opinions much weight already and feel my closing statement on them both is still reasonable even after totally discounting their opinions. Thanks again though for bringing it to my attention. Davewild (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sockpuppets of Kitia

Hi Rossami

well done spotting the apparent sockpuppetry. When I checked it out, it actually affected rather a lot of AfDs (about 7 to 10, I think), and since Kitia has also engaged in some canvassing, I thought that before takig it to ANI for possible further action, it would be a good idea if I also asked for a checkuser, which I have now done: see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kitia.

I'm fairly sure that You've Got Mail! (talk · contribs) is a sock of Kitia (the contribution timings show YGM consistently editing immediately before or after Kitia, in the same area), but I note that I'll bust your beak! (talk · contribs) also seems to have only contributed immediately before or after the other two, so I have included that one in the checkuser request. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sapere aude

Hi Rossami, I've responded on the talk page. I've asked El_C to contribute too, as he also tried to revert the soft redirect back to an article. Neıl ☎ 15:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LED circuit (2nd nomination)

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LED circuit (2nd nomination) as a keep, due to your comments and my reasoning at the end. Thank you for contributing to the discussion. Regards, Rt . 15:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likely just a mistake, but please be careful

In your edit here you removed comments made by me and two other editors in this AfD. Please be careful when adding comments. Thanks! (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]