User talk:Delldot/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Did You Know question

Hello! Your submission of Take Back the Land at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Art LaPella (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Undoing Overlinking

Thats ok for me, I appreciate the work you are doing to keep up the featured status, and I don't mind any reverts to my edits to keep the articles at this status. but there are some other links that relate to the subject, can I add them again separately?? Because your undo removed all the links I created, Keep up the good work, thank you :-) Maen. K. A. (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if you deem them related to the subject and all, that's fine. Sorry to have mass-reverted, I didn't see any that I definitely thought should stay, but I did see some that were kind of up in the air, so that's fine. Peace, delldot ∇. 15:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Take Back the Land

On April 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Take Back the Land, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

translation

Hello Delldot, could you take a look at the article Paolo Vaccari, written by me? An eye by a native speaker is always better, thank you :) SERGIUS (CATUS NIGER) 18:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The English is impeccable, looks like it was written by a native. The only problem I see is that there are no references. Can you add news sources or other references to back up the statements made in the article? Let me know if you need help. Peace, delldot ∇. 22:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the "impeccable", clearly you're too kind :) As for the references I'm going to provide some. thanks again. SERGIUS (CATUS NIGER) 08:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Provided sources (btw can you read Italian?), please let me know if that's enough. SERGIUS (CATUS NIGER) 09:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I can juuuust barely read Italian because I know Spanish, but I didn't look too long at those sources, from what I saw they looked good though. It would be good if you could find at least one in English if possible, so it's easier for en users to verify. I would also advise having at least one reference per paragraph, and definitely one for each sentence that contains a statistic-type fact, such as a score or a year. Generally great work though! delldot ∇. 20:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the International scores there's Scrum.com that provides a whole table with players' all matches and points. I usually put it at the bottom of the articles for any purpose (including verification of course :-) ). SERGIUS (CATUS NIGER) 11:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good! delldot ∇. 17:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

HD article to GAN again ( this time nominated correctly! )

Hi delldot, trust all goes well ! Huntington's disease is nominated for good article review again! Looie496 has volunteered to review it this time, but I was wondering if, as it may be easier to check out an article from the past, you had any general comments ( the article has had a major facelift, but much of previous material is still there - all be it in a different place). Many thanks and be well L∴V 12:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats LV, you've put so much into that article and improved it immensely. I haven't been very active lately but I'm happy to take a look when I get a chance. Take care, delldot ∇. 17:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou :) - Not just me - thyself, JFW and the hours ( if not days ) user:garrondo has put in! It's quite amazing glad there's other editors to work on the other articles :) L∴V 21:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Way hay! We got a shiny star added to the article :) And I mean WE, since without your review and following support the star wouldn't be there :) Peace. L∴V 00:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

*hug*

• hug* Gurch (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Dermatology

Do you have a specific interest in dermatology? ---kilbad (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No, not really, just medical stuff in general. Why do you ask? delldot ∇. 21:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi, Delldot! Like time no see. Good news! I've now become something of an activist in the Atheist community. What's even better is that there's a recently discovered fossil that proves that evolution is a fact!

Have a great day!--PeterWalser (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Good hearing from you. Wow, that's very cool. Activism has been an important and wonderful part of my life, I hope it is for you too. The fosil is fascinating, but remember in science you can never prove, only disprove: there's always room for doubt. (Of course, you can also make a really, really strong case!) delldot ∇. 13:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

another translation

Hi Delldot, as usual I need your competence as native speaker: I tried to de-stub this article, would you please check whether it has been correctly written in English? Thanks in advance, SERGIUS (CATUS NIGER) 18:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the delay in getting back to you! Looks good, I'd say the main thing it needs is references from news sources (or other reliable sources). Every fact needs a reference. I did a little copy editing, but for the main part it looked like it was written by a native English speaker. delldot ∇. 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you're tooooo kind :) I'm providing sources as soon as possible (I mean, I know where finding them, the problem is the time to find them :) ). SERGIUS (CATUS NIGER) 16:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, added references. Thanks for your infinite patience. SERGIUS (CATUS NIGER) 22:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! No problem, I'm happy to help however I can. delldot ∇. 04:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Traditional marriage movement discussion

Hi. Back in 2007 you participated in this discussion. Would you be willing to provide your perspective on the current discussion at Talk:Traditional marriage movement? Thanks! (sdsds - talk) 02:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh-uh. spicy theme... Are overseas debates on such matters as flamy as here in Italy? :) SERGIUS (CATUS NIGER) 16:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, but it's definitely a big deal here in the US; we have some pretty right-wing fundamentalist Christian elements. Have you read about proposition 8? delldot ∇. 07:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

hi

My name is Dieaa elbarodi from syria i'm 24 years old i need ur help to put http://www.juventusmania.net as a fan site or supporters of the juventus football club we have a large fan base here in the middleeast even larger than canada and thier site is included in the main page of juventus f.c that's written here in wikipedia .

with all my respect Diea'a Elbarodi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieaaa (talk • contribs) 12:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dieaa, thanks for the note. Usually the English Wikipedia prefers external links to be in English, is there an English version of the site? Or did you consider putting this link on the Arabic Wikipedia? It's not really the kind of link that's appropriate for an external link for an encyclopedia article, from what I can tell; it looks like it's commercial (at least from the 'store' part) and since external links are supposed to be informative, a fan site might not be the best external link. But you can bring it up on the talk page of the article and see if anyone objects. Am I right in thinking you want to put this link on the article for the football club? My impression is that it's not a great link and may get removed later, but it's not terrible and you could try putting it on and seeing if anyone minds. delldot ∇. 00:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:REHAB

Good morning Dell, I don't remember if I told you about this new project. We are trying to get editors to help get this project going better. We are still in the start phase and are a bit disorganized due to some delays at that start up. But the project seems to be gaining more traction and acceptance. I really feel a project like this is needed and will become an asset. The WP:REHAB project is going to be the last chance stop to rehabilitate to rejoin the community. The editors that have be indefinitely blocked/banned come to this project to find mentors and learn policy so they can rehab themselves to become knowledgeable editors to help the project as a whole. We are trying to get administrators involved because they have the tools needed to see pages that regular editors can’t see plus have the power to block if the rehab isn’t going the way towards improving the editors behavior for return to good status. I am trying to do the minor things like research, watching the boards for rehab possibilities to share with others at the rehab project. I am really behind this project but I am under limitations because of my RL. I have been working at strengthening myself by trying to gain weight which is hard for me to do. I was down to 93 lbs. but with a lot of work and a whole lot of ice cream I weighed in at 103 ½ this week. I have to get my weight over 110 lbs for surgery. My spine is deteriorating due to my Crohn’s. The surgery will replace a disk in my neck area. So with this kind of surgery I don’t feel it is right for me to actively mentor or volunteer for anything until after the surgery and the healing period. If you would be interested, please pop over to the Rehab project and take a look at what we are trying to do. If you are interested and available to help, please sign up. I understand if you are too busy or you are not interested. I just want to share this with you and any lurkers that may be watching your page.

I hope you are well. Typing this is so hard with the nerve damage I have from my spine that is affecting my limbs right now. But I keep pushing on. Keep in touch. My email is also activate so drop in anytime if you would like to. I hope to be able to get the surgery started by the first part of the month. Cross your fingers, this is going to be hard on me I’ve been told. Take care, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied by email. delldot ∇. 19:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

I've been working on trimming out the superfluous wording, but I think we should also shorten sections which are less essential by summarizing and removing peripheral matter. My preference is not to remove too much substance. Mamalujo (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Attachment theory

Delldot, can I ask your advice on this one since you did the peer review? I understand criticism sections are not necessarily considered a Good Thing and it is preferable to try and incorporate the material into the body of the text. Currently the article has quite an extensive criticism section, much of which is historical. Should I leave it as it is, or incorporate it into the history section or incorporate it all over the place? Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and incorporated criticism into History and reception but would still appreciate your views. Thanks. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, jeez, I'm sorry, I think I must have seen this and meant to reply but forgotten about it. I haven't been around much lately. I'm sorry! I'll take a look at it. Peace, delldot ∇. 00:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries.Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cite pmid/18827541

Looks like a broken redirect, but it is used in an article. MBisanz ^talk 23:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Filled it out by hand. delldot ∇. 05:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Characterization of flail chest

Hey there. I've noticed that flail chest is characterized as a "breaking of the chest wall". However, although the chest wall is obviously going to be affected, it seems to me the injury is primarily a multiple fracture of the ribs. I mean, if "a segment of the chest wall breaks under extreme stress and becomes detached from the rest of the chest wall," one would think that this is basically ripping off part of the chest wall, when soft tissues are not necessarily ripped (i.e. there can be absence of a chest wall pneumothorax). I'm not, however, very cognizant of medicine, much lest emergency medicine, so could you look into confirming/infirming this impression and jiggling the intro accordingly, if necessary? I've done a small hack in the first sentence, but a more thorough copyedit would be much better. Circeus (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I guess I assumed it was the same thing, i.e. if ribs break off in a segment, that is a segment of the chest wall. But we can make it more specific, which would probably be better anyway. delldot ∇. 19:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Attachment theory

Hi. Remember you peer reviewed this for me? I've added a bit more and puit it up for FAC now. The new bits are on attachment patterns, their significance, and the biology of attachment. All comments welcome. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lead poisoning

The article Lead poisoning you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lead poisoning for eventual comments about the article. Well done! RexxS (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well dang! Thanks a ton!! :D delldot ∇. 23:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

When I saw your nomination I thought of reviewing it but I was quite busy in real life... I was sure that it was going to pass with honors as it has done. Congratulations for your impressive work!!! Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Aw, thans so much Garrondo. :) Good to hear from you again. delldot ∇. 20:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Request to send deleted page

The article TRASSET Services Group, which was subject to speedy deletion is removed. I am here requesting you to userfy the page and email me a copy. Thank you. --10:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Deepu Mohan.P (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk. delldot ∇. 19:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You deleted my page! (waa!)

You deleted the page "Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America" which I had written. Since you are the second admin to do this, and since I disagree with the deletions, I would prefer to elevate the issue to a higher level for resolution. This needs to be a higher level than "admin", since there are so many admins. How do I go about doing this? You can reply to me personally at www.springtimesoftware.com/contact.php if you prefer. David spector (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey David. Yeah, I was sorry to delete the article, it certainly seems like an interesting topic (kind of similar to Take Back the Land, no?). Hm, it's not exactly a 'higher level' thing. As an admin I'm not a higher level than you or anyone else, and no one is exactly a higher level than me either, although there are different types of users with rights I don't have. Decisions about what's kept and what's deleted are made by the community. The way to contest a speedy deletion (the kind I made here) is to go through WP:DRV, but I can pretty much guarantee that that wouldn't work to get the article undeleted in this case. I'm quite confident that the policies back up the deletion decision I made here, because the article didn't assert why the subject's notable. But I'm not against you in this, I'd be happy for WP to have an article on this group, as long as the group meets the inclusion criteria. So here's what I recommend you do: Work on the article in your userspace (i.e. any page beginning with User:David spector/, e.g. User:David spector/NACA) until you have multiple reliable references and a good solid claim of notability (i.e. a reason why the group meets WP:ORG guidelines). I or someone else can check it over when you think it's ready, then it can be moved to the main article space with no fear of deletion. The main thing you need is multiple reliable sources; if you can provide them the article is pretty iron-clad, if not, it can't be included. Let me know if you'd like help with userfying the article or anything. Peace, delldot ∇. 20:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're saying. This group is notable primarily because "junk mortgages" started the current financial crisis, and this nonprofit group is actually helping the people most hit by the greed of home finance companies. The deletion prior to yours was not done because of the same reason you gave. It was done because there was a perceived problem with calling the group "financial terrorists". But the author, in his zeal to keep Wikipedia pure, didn't notice that it was the founder of the group who called it that, and furthermore that he was proud of the term! There really was no legal problem for me or for W.

Notability, according to Wikipedia policies, must be shown by reference to authoritative sources, such as respected media. Since I found detailed descriptions of this group and its activities in an American Broadcast Corporation news report and a Boston Globe news report (the largest newspaper in the home town of the organization), I was surprised by your deletion of the article and your statement that it is likely to continue to be deleted. Perhaps you can explain to me why references to ABC News and the Boston Globe are not sufficient to prevent deletion? And give me a minimum number of references necessary to prevent deletion? Thanks, David spector (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The only number requirement for sources I've heard of is 'multiple, non-trivial' mentions (i.e. the subject is covered in depth, not mentioned in passing). So two could save it from being speedied, although it would probably be deleted through a discussion if two articles are all that's ever been written on the group. The main rule of thumb in my book is, can you write a coherent article on the group in which every fact is attributed to a reliable source? If so, probably enough has been written on it. If you have to include facts that you can't reference (e.g. how much the head of the group makes) in order for the article to cover the subject enough, there probably isn't enough written about it for it to merit inclusion. But now I'm digressing into the more philosophical stuff that would usually get discussed in a deletion discussion, and your question is about speedy deletion. It looks like the article has been deleted 5 times by 4 admins including me. I'm not sure if the person that tagged it for deletion when I deleted it was remarking on the terrorist thing (which needs to be attributed to a reliable source regardless of who allegedly said it; the nature of WP is that anyone can add anything, thus we can't allow the statement "so-and-so called himself a terrorist" to stand without a reference) or because the article was saying they dump stuff on people's lawns. But yeah, if the group merits inclusion, that stuff could just be taken out if it can't be referenced. You have a good point about the coverage in reliable sources. But I didn't see anything in the article that I thought constituted a claim to notability in the article, a statement about why the group is important or different from other groups. That's a bit different than a claim to newsworthiness ("junk mortgages" started the current financial crisis, and this nonprofit group is actually helping the people most hit by the greed of home finance companies) because the group isn't distinguished from any other group that might do that. I'm not sure that doing that makes a group notable. If the group has garnered national attention, that could be a good notability claim. But again I'm kind of digressing into the more philosophical rather than the more straightforward speedy criteria. My recommendation would be to work on the article in your userspace, take out anything that can't be referenced and include any references you can (It looks from a google news search like there are a good number). If you move it to the main article space as it is, I won't speedy it but someone else may, and it will likely be deleted through a discussion if not. However, if you add a reliable reference or each statement, it should be fine. Let me know if you need help. Peace, delldot ∇. 21:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Winter War(s) GA-review

Hi! You are reviewing the Winter War article. I was wondering do you have also extra time to review the Background of the Winter War article? You gave some good suggestions, but a full review would be good idea. And furthermore, what is a current status of the Winter War article as I edited most of it (though not all) by your suggestions? Maybe the rest of the article need to be reviewed? Peltimikko (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a possibility that I'll review the Background article, but let's see how this one goes first. I will only want to do it if I the guy I'm reviewing Winter War with wants to. I still have some concerns about the neutrality of Winter War, including some of the points you have responded to: it's not that I dispute any of the facts, I'm just concerned that there may be an emphasis on facts that make the Russians look bad and the Finnish look good. This is a really tough problem because it may be that it's not possible for you to find a neutral source or a balance of non-neutral ones. And obviously you can't avoid stating facts simply because they cast one side or the other in a certain light. I'm just concerned about the balance of the statements. So I'm not sure how close we are to being able to pass that article. Anyway, let's keep the dialog going on the Talk:Winter War/GA1 page about that. I'll work on my next set of installments and finish looking over your changes today. Peace, delldot ∇. 20:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Just popping in...

Hi Dell, I just want to let you know that I am still around, barely though. I had my spinal surgery on 9/11 and I am still in recovery and doing rehab. The good news though is that so far it seems the surgery went well for me. I still have serious problems with my left arm/hand and some with my right arm/hand and left leg but physical therapy is supposed to help. I am now waiting to see if I get normal feeling back which could take some months to learn. Overall though I can't complain. I hope you are well. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so glad the surgery went well. I was worried about you! I'm sure the PT will help. I hope to see you around more as you get better and are more able to edit. Drop me a note any time. I'm doing pretty well! I can give you the update about what's up in my life via email if you like. Peace, delldot ∇. 02:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, yes please do, I'd love an update. I am just now starting to get back into my life again. I can't drive so I had my husband drop me off at a store so I could pick up a few things by myself without someone actively watching out for me. He did some shopping at a store in the same area so he did his thing and I did mine and it was wonderful! I don't drive much but now that I can't I want to sometimes. I appreciate my family helping but sometimes I feel smothered so it helped a lot to do my own shopping even if it was only for a little bit. I'm doing a lot of the housekeeping stuff now too! I look forward to hearing from you. As always, take your time. --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Wikibirthday!

4 years without getting despatched to an institution for evaluation. Congrats! Manning (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Aw, thanks! :D delldot ∇. 02:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Wisconsin Ovarian Cancer Alliance

We were looking at the same copyvio article at the same time. You deleted Wisconsin Ovarian Cancer Alliance while I was trying to rewrite the article to eliminate the copyvio. Could you please restore the version I saved just a few moments before you deleted the article? Many thanks. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't restore any of the content that's in the other site. I'm concerned it would be a lot of work for me to pick out what would be cv material to undelete it. How about I email you what I deleted, so you can pick out what you wrote and restore only that? I'm also concerned that this is not going to meet any of the notability criteria for organizations, do you have a solid notability claim and multiple reliable sources? Sorry to be a pain. Peace, delldot ∇. 04:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, duh, I'm sorry, I must have deleted the previous version without noticing the new fixed version. Sorry, when I responded to this I didn't realize you had completely fixed the problem, I was thinking it was still a partial cv. Restoring now. delldot ∇. 04:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Help with a deleted page: "Sand Point Country Club"

You deleted my page on Sand Point Country Club and I fully understand why. When it was first nominated for a speedy deletion, there was a note about how to have it "userfied" or something like that (I forget exactly what that means or how to request it) and am hoping you can do that for me. Also, I read a comment you made re: "You deleted my page! (waa!)" about how to create an article in your own WP space so you can continue to work on it until it's "ready." How can I do that? I'd like to continue working on my article and when (if) I believe the article's ready, I'll have someone (you?) review it to make sure... Thanks.

George R. Brumder (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, if you read that book I wrote above, you're pretty well read on the topic by now! To userfy it, I could undelete the article and move it to a page in your userspace of your choosing, e.g. User:Grbrumder/Sand Point, all you'd have to do is let me know you want to. Or you could start fresh on the article in your userspace on your own. Which might be a better choice, because if I'm remembering right, there wasn't much content in the article that I considered keepable--at the very least it would all need to be attributed to reliable references, and I'm not sure the info on all the services and amenities really belongs in an encyclopedia article anyway. I have my doubts as to whether this club will ever meet the notability criteria, but check WP:ORG and see if you can prove me wrong. The most important thing is to have multiple reliable sources that cover the topic in a nontrivial way. So if I were writing this article, I'd start in my userspace, gather whatever references I could, and put together an article from what's in those (in my experience it's way harder to find references for info that's already there than to add new info from refs you already have). But let me know what you want to do. Peace, delldot ∇. 00:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you please userfy the page and email it to me or move it to a subpage under my user page? I'm going to work on it some more. Thanks, George R. Brumder (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, done. it's at User:Grbrumder/Sand Point. Let me know if you need any help with editing or understanding any of the relevant guidelines, e.g. the notability guidelines for organizations. Peace, delldot ∇. 00:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Photron

Hello, The article I created on Photron is used in several instances in other articles on Webpedia. I can obtain permission from Photron to use the name and/or content for webpedia. I see instances of other obvious products such as a Canon SLR listed on webpedia. What I put into the article was not to advertise but to inform people who have questions on the orgin of a high speed camera type or a manufacture of a high speed camera much in the same way as I see for Nikon or Canon or others cameras that are used by the public. I am new at Webpedia. I am an expert in high speed cameras however. I looked at the request for permission of copyright material as indicated in the notice sent about the Photron page. It is not very obvious how to respond. Can you make a suggestion.

--HighSpeedWizzard (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Wizzard, welcome to WP, I'm happy to help. Glad to have your expertise here, have you considered checking out WP:FPC or reviewing articles in your area of expertise? About Photron, there's actually four things I see that are wrong with the article as it was:

1. The content has been previously published elsewhere.
2. The product may be too obscure to meet the notability criteria
3. None of the references there are WP:reliable sources, and much of the content has no reference at all.
4. The tone of the article makes it read like an ad (e.g. "the basic elements that represent our state-of-the-art technologies"--this violates our very fundamental Neutrality policy).

To deal with #1 you'd need to get them to publish it under a GFDL-compatible license, e.g. by changing the copyright notice on their site to GFDL. If that's dealt with or if you want to rewrite the article in your own words, you would need to find reliable sources to back up the information in the article and it would need to have a claim to notability, basically a reason why the product is famous enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Let me know if you need help. Peace, delldot ∇. 01:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there!

Hey there I was just reading through your GA review of Winter War (which is excellent by the way) and noticed your comments on non-english sources. It isn't required that all sources be in english, although it is obviously preferred, and having non-english sources is perfectly fine. Just to let you know, cheers Skinny87 (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Skinny, thanks for the kind words. Re: non-English sources: Agreed, they're not as good but they're allowed. I was particularly bringing this up with respect to claims that seemed to make the Finnish side look good or make the Russians look bad (e.g. "Stalin was pissed about this and that" IIRC) because those are particularly likely cases where someone might want to seek out the source to back it up. But yeah, I wouldn't hold up the GA on those grounds alone. Peace, delldot ∇. 01:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please help!

Hello! Im rustafunk and i created a page about my band the other day that you deleted. I am now redoing it but would like your help so i doesnt get deleted again! The page was entitled FREIGHT TRAIN THEORY. Im new to wiki but think its awesome and i use it heaps for find info on things and i really want to utilize it for my band! Please Help me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustafunk (talk • contribs)

Hey Rustafunk, sure, I'm happy to help with writing, if there's something you want to know just ask. Has your band been written about in reliable sources like magazines and newspapers? If not, it can't have an article on WP until it has. Check out WP:BAND to see if your group meets the inclusion criteria. Let me know if you have any other questions! Peace,

delldot ∇. 03:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

:(

Gurch (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Request to review the Winter War article

Sorry to interrupt you, but do you have a moment to review the article Winter War again? I did lot of edits, and hopefully managed to answer to your questions from the article. I tried to open more the Soviet point of views in the subarticle Aftermath of the Winter War (under contemprorary views). I managed to find a main motive for the Soviet assault which is used in Russian (and sometimes Western) literature: the protection of Leningrad (against Nazi Germany). Also Finnish attacks in East-Karelia 1919-1920 (during the Russian Civil War) is used as a reason. Other reasons, such as Shelling of Mainila, military provoke by Western Allies and Finnish right-wing extremists, are mainly displaced (though the Russian "traditionalists" use also these reasons). Overall, to find valid and well-balanced reasons for the Soviet assault is very challenging. Peltimikko (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Absoultely, you've been doing a great job, sorry for the delay. I've just been busy in RL and had a hard time getting back together with my WWII buff buddy. I'm getting on it tonight though! delldot ∇. 00:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

i think you dont know about my magazine, but you want to know about NOTABILITY, as a editor i like to make vellinila wikipedia, and this magazine contains lot of good stuffs ( ofcourse only in tamil language), thats why i couldnt get appreciation quickly from varies places or various organisation, somebodies give the support to grow our magazine, but they wont come to frontline when they are claps.destiny? anyhow i hope we will reach the limelight for our nobel cause. - thanking you ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.118.169 (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete my post?

Why did you delete my post on Gregory Scarpa, Jr.? The post was relevant as he was a mafioso and son of an infamous mafioso, all the information was true and verified by the book 'Mafia Son' by Sandra Harmon —Preceding unsigned comment added by WD Devil (talk • contribs) 22:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi WD Devil. I saw no claim to notability. Please read WP:BIO and decide if he meets any of the criteria you see there. If he does, and you can provide sources in the article that verify this, the article can probably be kept. Please also read WP:BLP. If you write an article with unverified negative information about a living person, you can get in a lot of trouble and so could Wikipedia. Let me know if you need help or have any questions. Peace, delldot ∇. 00:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Tonelux Designs Limited Deletion

If you delete this site, you need to delete all manufacturers that have contributed to the audio industry. There was nothing in my posting that was advertising. It was all factual, and after owning API (automated processes, inc) for 15 years, which invented much of what we currently know in broadcasting and audio, and after selling it, I formed Tonelux Designs, Limited. There is a lot of history that goes way beyond what is on the site. If you think it is just advertising, you are completely nuts. I advertise in magazines, internet, trade shows, etc, surely not Wiki. I will begin a process of protesting every manufacturer that you have and I will make sure you follow your own rules.

Paul Wolff President, Tonelux Designs, Limited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulwolff (talk • contribs) 18:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Paul. Did you read WP:CORP? If so, did Tonelux meet any of the notability criteria there? If so, and if you have reliable, third party sources to prove it that you can cite in the article, it can probably be kept. However, you should probably not be the one to write it per our WP:COI guideline. It can be difficult to remain true to our very fundamental neutrality policy from so close to the subject; indeed I thought much of the article was too glowing for an objective encyclopedia article, and offered too much detail about products and services, more than was appropriate outside of marketing copy. For example: "The design allows preamplifier, compressor and equalizer modules to be added to a... portable rack, or a single rack mount box, or a complete custom recording console, totally configurable to the specific needs of the recording professional recording studio, all within a specified design budget." If you're aware of other articles that may not meet the notability, neutrality, or verifiability criteria please do bring them to my attention or to someone else who can address the problem. Let me know if you need any help or clarification. Peace, delldot ∇. 00:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You deleted a page I created

I created a page for PPEP, Inc. (non-profit organization) and it was deleted. I spend a lot of time and effort to create this page and I don't believe I involved myself with any copyright infringement acts. I suspect that what is considered copyright infringement would be the table labeled; "PPEP Inc. Highlights". I actually was going back to delete but now I have to start from scratch? All material that was submitted to Wikipedia was "in my own words" like your guidelines indicate to do. I need this page up again and I can make the necessary adjusments to avoid any copyright issues. thank you very much for your help

JD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juandiarte (talk • contribs) 23:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi JD, sure I can undelete the page as long as the only material on it is in your own words. But I also didn't see an assertion of notability, could you look at WP:ORG and let me know which of the criteria the group meets? Of course the most important one is having been covered in multiple reliable sources independent from the group (e.g. newspaper, magazine). Let me know if you need any help or whatnot. Peace, delldot ∇. 02:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: Page Deleted (PPEP, Inc.)

Okay, so I read what you told me to do and I have to admit it is a bit confusing. I am pretty certain that the non-profit organization I created a page for is a non-commercial organization. They have been around for 42years. I have found numerous third party articles indicating that the organization is "notable". If you could please put the page up again so I don't have to start from scratch, I would greatly appreciate it. I have some changes I can make to ensure I am abiding by all of Wikipedia's guidelines. Trust me, I am not trying to break any "rules", I am just a Wikipedia fan just like you. Thank you very much for your help.

JD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juandiarte (talk • contribs) 16:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take your word for it that it's been written about in reliable sources, that's the main important thing for notability. Will you add these sources pretty soon after I undelete the article? That way it won't get deleted again by someone else. Sorry if I came off like I thought you were trying to break the rules, I certainly didn't think that or want you to think I did. delldot ∇. 23:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for peer review for SENSOR-Pesticides

Hi, delldot! Before I make my "formal request," I'd like to comment that I was very impressed by the lead poisoning article that you worked so hard on. I'm hoping to re-vamp another article, and I'm inspired by your organization and structure there. Good work!

Anyway, I've been working on an article for the SENSOR-Pesticides program for a while now and wanted to ask for your help in peer-reviewing it. I came here through the lead poisoning article and saw that you "like to help" on your user page, so please help! Any input would be greatly appreciated. I'd like to eventually nominate it for GA status, so the more feedback, the better. Thank you! MMagdalene722^{talk to me} 18:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Aw, shucks, thanks! Sure I'll give it a look. delldot ∇. 23:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits! FYI, the term "disinsection" is actually a word, and is the technical term for the process of sterilizing aircraft for customs protection. (When I first saw that, I thought it was a typo in the article's title - I was like, "Man, that's embarassing..." :-). As far as organization and content, did it look okay? MMagdalene722^{talk to me} 13:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ohhh, insect, insection. Got it. I'm only about halfway through, I'm compiling a list of comments to put up when I'm through. Peace, delldot ∇. 15:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

delldot, I just wanted to thank you again for your help with the peer review. Of all the comments I received, yours were some of the most helpful. When my supervisor comes back from his honeymoon, I'll have him look at it, and then I'll submit it for GA consideration (but I'll try to find different reviewers for that :-). Thanks very much for your advice - I definitely appreciate it! MMagdalene722^{talk to me} 13:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I'm glad it was helpful. delldot ∇. 14:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

While you're here...

Injury epidemiology was mentioned at WT:MED, seems right up your alley :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for letting me know about it, sure I'll give it a look. Peace, delldot ∇. 19:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sean Wolfington

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

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Wolfington (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Template:Cats needed

I have nominated Template:Cats needed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Diffuse panbronchiolitis GA

I just wanted to drop you a note to thank you for the review and all you did to point me in the right direction. You not only helped me upgrade the article; you taught me how to write better articles. I deeply appreciate that :-) Thx again, and much success to all of your future endeavors! Rcej (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome, thanks for working so hard on it. delldot ∇. 04:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking for an outside opinion

Hey delldot, it's me again. I was wondering if I could request a third-party opinion from you: another user, who has been following the development of the SENSOR-Pesticides article since I started working on it, has raised some concerns about the Background section. He's been really helpful in pointing me in the right direction, especially when I was first getting oriented with Wikipedia. Could you have a look at the discussion and weigh in? I value your input since you're a much more experienced editor than either of us. Thank you! MMagdalene722^{talk to me} 12:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Link to news article on deleted page

Delldot - I created the Dirty Pool wikipedia page which was deleted, I believe by you. I submit this article from the Washington Post as proof of the sport's existance. In addition to this article, my original article spoke of the historical character of this sport as it was played approximately 30 years ago in Houston Texas. I would like to link it to the "hybrid sports" section of the "football" page. Please let me know what other criteria I would need to submit to you or others to allow this page to exist.

thanks for your time. Here's the link:

Richard Williamson Richwilliamson (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Rich, thanks for the note. The main thing you need to know is this: EVERY FACT in the article must be referenced to a reliable source (the Post article is fine). If you can't write a coherent article having done that, the subject probably hasn't had enough written about it. Is there more than this one reference? ("multiple third party reliable sources" are called for to show notability). I'm not seeing more after a quick Google search (other than "don't go swimming in one"), but feel free to point out other sources. But if you're the same Rich mentioned in the article, you should probably not be authoring the article per WP:COI, but that's a judgment call. Honestly I don't think this article will survive if you rewrite it--the post article is more about "here's this game that some people made up and some anecdotes about our first time playing it", not so much "this is a real sport and here's how it works". So you'd need some sources verifying that this is a real phenomenon if you want it to survive the deletion discussion that will likely occur if you rewrite this. Let me know if you need help or clarification on any of this. Sorry to be a downer. Peace, delldot ∇. 04:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate your help. Ok, I understand why this should not be a standalone page based on reading the links you sent helpfully, however, there is a sport listed under "Based on Rugby" named "Scuffleball" that has no references on the page, only one link on google (like the 10th one down), and its not a news story, doesn't explain its origins and is certainly not notable. It was probably written by its main participant. My sport on the other hand was played in Houston Texas by many children and also I just found out from a member of my association, in South Dakota as well, and has been detailed in a major newspaper. I would request you add the sport to the list of games listed on the "football" page under the section "hybrid games" and link to the newspaper article. Can you please tell me how the listing of scuffleball on the football page is more reasonable than the listing of a 30 year old sport played in at least two locations that has been documented in a newspaper? The football page is apparently not allowed to be modified by me so I need a sponsor or its equivalent on WP. Thanks for your help!! If you don't want to add this sport to the football page, I request you delete scuffleball!! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richwilliamson (talk • contribs) 22:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Good catch on the Scuffleball, you're probably the first person to have noticed that. You're quite right, that should be removed--anything without sufficient references to prove it exists and it's notable can't stay. I removed it. I'm surprised you still can't edit the page, you should be able to in a couple days if you can't yet (there's a grace period before you can edit semi-protected pages after you register your account because vandals sometimes create accounts to vandalize). Anyway, I still don't think dirty pool meets the notability criteria (mainly because of the multiple sources thing), but if you want to get more input on the idea of adding it to the Football article you could bring it up on Talk:Football (but I gotta warn you, I'm pretty sure most Wikipedians will see things the same way). Let me know if you need any help or anything. Peace, delldot ∇. 03:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Just want it to be consistent. I'll review the rules more in depth before attempting to post again - if my organization actually becomes notable! :) I think most of the world has no idea of the rules of wikipedia, and I think there are some parts of wikipedia that don't really meet this criteria for an encyclopedia, but are included because perhaps they are most widespread in interest...so some articles meet some criteria well, and some criteria poorly. I'm just happy to have one location to find things, regardless. However, I understand that if we truly had everyone entering anything they wanted that it would be worthless because it would become little more than the whole internet on one site. Not good. I'll research other "underground" sports and see how they got wiki articles. That was what I was doing with scuffleball, and, of course, it didn't belong on there. I was surprised so many "underground" sports actually are quite widespread. Especially the beach volleyball with trampolines game! You should read about it!! Peace and happy t-day. Richard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richwilliamson (talk • contribs) 17:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a really good way of explaining it, quite insightful. I'm always trying to explain that to people whose articles I delete, but I haven't been able to explain it well usually. Maybe I'll just point them to this discussion! delldot ∇. 19:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Diffuse panbronchiolitis

Since you're the one who promoted it, and I'm loathe to go and straight delist it, mind going over my comments at Talk:Diffuse panbronchiolitis#COPD? It seems to me like there is quite a crucial misunderstanding somewhere along the line. Circéus (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Gulp. That's pretty serious, thanks for catching it and bringing it up. Replied at the talk page. delldot ∇. 04:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Help?

Hi Delldot. This is Sean Wolfington. you helped me edit my page in the past to ensure it met Wikipedias guidelines. I recently recieved a message that said my article was nominated for deletion. It said "please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Wolfington (2nd nomination)." Can you advise me about what is happening and what you recommend i do? I read some of the discussion and they are saying that my bio is relatively unaccomplished. I don't know what the criteria is but i know that the bio has not been updated because it is missing alot of information. Here are a few examples that may or may not be relevent. i am an executive producer of the new film "The Mighty Macks" (you can view the info about my executive producer role on imdb at this link: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2055676/. A few months ago Haute Living included me in the Haute 100, a list of 100 influential leaders (view at: http://www.hauteliving.com/?s=sean+wolfington) I currently own 7 companies in the entertainment, technology and digital marketing industries. I can provide more information if that is needed. Thanks. Sean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanwolfington (talk • contribs) 06:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Sean. The discussion is over and the article has been deleted. As far as recreating the article, you pretty much know the deal by now. You need multiple, reliable, independent sources that attest to the subject's notability. Apparently what was in the article wasn't enough for the participants in the discussion to feel that you meet the inclusion criteria. You could submit your info supporting why you believe you're notable at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and see whether people there agree that that would meet the criteria (if you do decide to start this thread, I'd suggest you let the people who participated in the deletion discussion know on their talk pages so they can say whether this new info would change their minds). If so, the article can be recreated and the new info added. If not, I would advise that you wait until someone else notices that you're notable and decides to write an article about you. Peace, delldot ∇. 16:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I don't know enough about Wiki to know if i am notable. HOw is that judged and what is your oppinion based on what you know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanwolfington (talk • contribs) 17:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's judged by discussion and consensus, that's why I was suggesting you take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and get their opinions on whether you're notable. Personally, I would have thought that being the producer of a popular film would do it, but after the results of that last discussion I guess not, so I'm not sure how much the new information will change that. Peace, delldot ∇. 17:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

So do i leave a message on this business page? Is it possible for me to view the old page so i can give them what was there so they can judge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.74.22 (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's a talk page just like this one, only for a WikiProject, which is a group of people that get together to focus on a certain type of articles. The old info has already been judged and deemed not sufficient, so I would think you should focus on the new info you mentioned. So if it were me I'd start a new section and leave a note saying something like "the article about me was deleted, but there's new info that I think could support that I do meet the notability criteria because of this this and this, here are my references." And see whether they think the article could be undeleted based on your info. Good luck! delldot ∇. 02:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

I left a message on the business page you suggested and the talk pages of the people who suggested the article be deleted a few days ago. I have not recieved any response yet. Thanks for your advice. Seanwolfington (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, good luck! delldot ∇. 22:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

*snuggle*

*snuggle* Gurch (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

*hug* Gurch (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Gate control theory illustrations

Hi Delldot. Back in February 2008 you contributed illustrations to the article. I think I have noticed an error. I believe the inhibitory interneuron acts directly on the Aβ and C fibers, not the projection neuron. I can't lay my hand on Melzack & Wall 1965 just now, but I'm pretty sure that was how they described it. See:

• http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/133/4/images/bul_133_4_581_fig2a.gif
• http://www.frca.co.uk/article.aspx?articleid=100119
• http://www.unmc.edu/physiology/Mann/mann6.html (half-way down the page)
• http://images.medscape.com/pi/editorial/conferences/2002/1863/art-aps-01.fig2.gif

If you agree, and are able too, would you consider changing the illustrations? Anthony (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh. I was using Principles of Neural Science by Kandel, p. 486 as a model for the illustrations. I don't see the difference, but I could have made an error. It's been a long time since I was studying this stuff. Let me know what you think after looking at my source. Peace, delldot ∇. 17:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like some of your sources are showing what Melzack and Wall first proposed. Maybe the theory's changed since then? delldot ∇. 17:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi delldot. Darn science. Why won't it just stop shifting for a while? I found Melzack & Wall 1965 and it does, indeed, have the inhibitory neuron acting on the Aβ and C fibers, not the projection neuron. I've just done a bunch of "google books"-ing and find that ALL the neuroanatomical details of the GCT are discredited by recent research and most of the things it sought to explain are better explained by current theory. The response of today's theorists toward the theory and its prominence is derision. Coincidentally, I just got an email from an American neuroscientist and theorist whom I had asked to review the Pain and Emotion pages (Bud Craig) saying, in part, this:

The Pain page has several comments that I don't find appropriate, but I'm sorry, I just don't feel like taking the time to edit it. One item that I think really ought to be added is a comment that the "gate control theory" has finally been disproved quite definitively. Here is the reference. It served a historical purpose, but it needs to be de-emphasized in the textbooks, because it is not a viable model.

I'd already put a few words to that effect under evolution of the theory, on the Pain page before I opened his email, so I'll incorporate his reference in due course. Basically, to bring the GCT up to date would appear to require a completely different schematic - and then it wouldn't be the GCT! I think Kandel just got it wrong, along with others. So, sadly, I reckon the illustration might need changing if it is to represent the GCT (or just removing?) Anthony (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, good research work. Glad you found that glaring error. So I think the first thing is to change the Gate control theory to reflect that it's a historical, disproved theory. The images can go or stay on that page in that context, I have no opinion. I agree that they don't belong on any other page. Thanks for doing all that work to correct the pages! delldot ∇. 17:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Portal

Yeah I agree that the portal should be removed.Jmckeon ie (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I'm happy to leave it in your userspace if you want to work on it more and maybe move it back to portal space at some point, or I'm also happy to delete the pages that are now in your userspace; just let me know which you'd rather. Peace, delldot ∇. 02:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly I forgot about the portal. I've some free time now I'd like to try and complete it in my userspace. Thanks for your helpJmckeon ie (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Great, good luck with that! delldot ∇. 17:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead poisoning

Hiya delldot! Just out of curiosity, were you thinking about submitting the lead poisoning article for FA consideration, or were you content to just leave it as GA? Just curious. MMagdalene722^{talk to me} 14:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd thought about it, but it'd take a lot of work--it's nowhere near FA status yet (mainly because of organization--there's a lot of random crap just kind of thrown in together). Last time I tried bringing something up to FA I got bogged down and stopped editing for a while. I don't really have time now, but it might be something to do in six months or so. Peace, delldot ∇. 17:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Help with dermatology-related content

I know you passed before, I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our new Bolognia push 2009!? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? I could send you the login information for the Bolognia push if you are interested? ---kilbad (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't really have time for editing now, good luck with that though! delldot ∇. 17:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, userfy Project:Khitan is fine for me ;), thanks for your work ! Yug (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hi, I would courteously invite you to take a second look your closure at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kerberos/Sandbox please, as I think you have interpreted the discussion incorrectly. As one discussant noted, Kerberos "has essentially admitted that this page is kept in userspace in order to get around WP:NPOV, and that it's a sort of crystal ballery". Surely this is not what we want on WP. Johnfos (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi John. Yeah, it was a tough one. As I'm sure you know, closing discussions is based on what the admin decides was the consensus of the discussion, not what they personally think were the merits of the page being discussed. Also, (again as you probably know), closing discussions is not about adding up numbers. For example, the 'sitting there for some time' argument I gave less weight to since s/he seems to have been working on it lately. That said, Here was a synopsis of what the numbers looked like: Two deletes (including yours), a 'weak delete', a 'move or delete' (which argument I considered weak and not policy based and therefore gave less weight), and two keeps. Having carefully read the whole debate, I didn't feel comfortable declaring that there had been a strong consensus either way. Of course, if s/he tries to move the page into article space, or change existing articles against consensus, or violates policy in any other way, that can be dealt with swiftly. Anyway, I hope this is a satisfactory explanation, I'm happy to discuss it further if you like. Peace, delldot ∇. 16:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This allow the user to keep their article that they admit they have no intention of ever moving this to article space because it would be immediately deleted. My 'move or delete' comment was policy based. A userspace draft is used for working on articles and eventually a draft must sink or swim. A draft is something that will be moved to main - this won't, by admission of the user, so it is no longer a draft. It is a POV soapbox. My rationale to delete is as strong as any other user: "hosting POV content in userspace is not a valid use." Miami33139 (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just took a look at this and the debate. Your close is ok but maybe some of the problems could be helped if the article had 'no index' on it so it didn't show up in search engines. Just a thought as I've seen this done in situations like this. If the article isn't ready for mainspace than it should be no indexed to prevent it from being falsely assummed it is. Hope this helps some. I hope you are well Dell. I'll talk to you again soon. --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Crohnie.  :) Miami, I'm not aware of a rule that requires a workpage to be moved to the mainspace when it hits a certain length; that's why I gave that comment less weight. With or without your comment, though, I didn't feel that there was a strong enough consensus to delete given the two rational keeps. As I told John, a closing admin is supposed to look at the debate itself in light of policy, not their own feelings on the merits of the page. If you think my judgment of consensus was flawed, I'm certainly willing to listen to your reasoning. Peace, delldot ∇. 00:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There were policy reasons to delete as a POV copy of deleted material, which the user admitted he had no plans to fix and submit to mainspace. That is classic fake article, not a webhost, and not a soapbox reasons to delete - all policy. On your count of consensus there were four deletes and two keeps, on strict numerics, 66% is well into consensus range for deletion. Miami33139 (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I would think that, numerically speaking, 66% could go either way, depending on the arguments. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that the deletes had *no* policy (and guideline)-based reasoning--in that case I would have closed as keep. There were reasoned arguments on both sides. If you feel my judgment of consensus was incorrect, you can always DRV. Peace, delldot ∇. 15:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

this one, too: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Enniskillen&diff=next&oldid=330538081

hi delldot, I think this one should be reverted, too. - --79.215.219.193 (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Right you are, done, thanks for catching that. That must have been in there a while, I thought I had reverted all the nonsense from the past few weeks. Anyway, thanks for helping out, see you around. delldot ∇. 21:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

GA for Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak

Dear Delldot, I am keenly interested in bringing Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak up to GA status. Do you think you can help with the review? Thanks! Basket of Puppies 03:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I can take a look. Peace, delldot ∇. 02:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Delldot! Ready for the next round of improvements whenever you have a chance. Thanks!! Basket of Puppies 08:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I am ready for the 4th installment, when/if you believe it's to that point. Basket of Puppies 07:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Kudos. I really respect you for agreeing to de-nom the nomination. So often our counterparts let ego get in the way. Thanks!--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no worries. I probably should have figured out to do it before you suggested it. delldot ∇. 23:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

KSM (band)

Hello! You were recently involved in an AfD discussion regarding the article KSM (band). I just updated the page and was hoping for some honest feedback. Note that I am not a fan or in any way connected to the subject, but I am rather new to Wikipedia and this is my first “blind” rewrite. Comments, criticism, and advice are all welcome. Of course, please do any additional editing to improve the article if you can. Thanks in advance. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks awesome Logical Fuzz, really impressive work. My main concern had been the absence of references, which you took care of. With the addition of a little more material, you might consider submitting it to T:TDYK, to get an interesting fact from the article on the Main Page. (Looks like before you started working on it it was 606 characters of prose, so you're just a bit shy of the fivefold increase in size required to qualify for DYK.) I'm happy to help walk you through that process if you're interested. As far as suggestions, I would flesh out the references (with publisher, title, date, and date you accessed them, perhaps using a template like {{cite web}} (see that link for directions)). From the bare urls it's hard to tell what the reference is without going to it. Other than that, it'd be good to find a citation for the record sales thing that's tagged as needing one. And would it be possible to hide that last section of the table until info for it is found? Lastly, I wonder if there's a freely licensed picture of them anywhere--have you checked flickr for cc images? Or maybe a promo picture, don't they sometimes give those free licenses? Anyway, thanks much for fixing the article up, it direly needed it. Definitely let me know if you have any questions or need any help, any time. Peace, delldot ∇. 23:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure what possessed me to take on this page because I really am still a novice here! This has been a good way to learn. I haven't figured out how to do citations correctly, as you mentioned, so that will be next on my list to learn. Someone else did point out to me that some of the references are blogs, which I should have realized wasn't a good source. I plan to do all that ASAP.

The record sales issue was a big one to me, but I haven't been able to find anything yet. I did put the "citation needed" there as a reminder, hoping that some passer-by might be up to the challenge. Regarding hiding the last section of the table, I can definitely do that. I left the table in because most bands/groups seem to have one (so it seemed like a "style" requirement---I had been considering just deleting the whole thing!

Regarding a picture...I briefly looked over the Wiki pages on images the other day and became quickly overwhelmed with "free Licenses" and "fair use" etc. That will take me a little longer. ;)

Regarding DYK, I think it might be hard to find much more worth mentioning in the article, and I'm afraid I may actually lose text if I have to remove some info cited in the blogs. It appears DYK needs to be submitted within 5 days--not sure I could have this all pretty by then, especially with the holidays coming. Wish I had known about that before, I could have kept editing the version on my user page longer! I'm always learning!

Thanks again for your comments and advice! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, there's always DYK for your next effort. If you want you could take out the table until you find the citation and the other info, it might be a style guideline but I doubt it's a hard requirement. Good point about taking out the blog refs, I hadn't noticed that. As far as pictures, yeah, that's super complex and probably one of the most annoying things on WP. Feel free to ask me if you need any help, although I'm confused about it myself sometimes. I'd stay away from fair use altogether for this article, it's a pretty rare case where you can actually use it (it's only for when that particular image is essential for an effective explanation of the subject). Anyway, you're doing a great job, keep up the good work! delldot ∇. 01:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Best Wishes for the Holidays, Jusdafax 07:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And now, for FV's traditional last-minute nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Here’s wishing you a happy end to the holiday season and a wonderful 2010. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Aw, thank you FV, happy holidays to you too! Good hearing from you again. delldot ∇. 04:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead poisoning redux

I'm taking some stick from an IP who can't understand the last sentence in the lede of Lead poisoning and keeps removing it. I've already made a second revert (which I hate doing). Could you take a look and see if the IP (contributions) has any sort of valid point, please? – as otherwise the only recourse would seem to be WP:AIV. --RexxS (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for dealing with that, sorry I've been gone. They're right that it's a horrible sentence, I've messed with it a ton but I can't get it to say what I want it to: some substances have this minimum threshold that you can be exposed to without any harm. Lead doesn't have one that we know of. As far as we know, any amount of lead, no matter how tiny, can still hurt you. If you can work that info into a sentence that does not make so little sense that it makes IPs quote Pulp Fiction, I'd be much obliged! delldot ∇. 05:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

How about: As far as we know, any amount of lead, no matter how tiny, can still hurt you? :D

Here's another quote for you to spot: "Are you any good?" – "No, I'm a jane-eous" --RexxS (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not exactly that we think it can hurt you, it's that we don't know that it can't. That is, no minimum threshold has been discovered yet. It's an evidence of absence/absence of evidence thing. Probably what we should do is just say 'no minimum threshold has been discovered' (which is how all the articles say it) and then explain what is meant by a minimum threshold. (I think at the time I was trying to keep the length down, but it's not too heinously long at the moment, is it?) delldot ∇. 02:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason the original MF had a problem with the English was that the text was trying to say two things in a single sentence, so you've certainly got the right tack. Yes, you're right – it's not overlong and it wouldn't hurt to take two sentences to state no minimum threshold of toxicity has been found; and then explain concisely what the minimum threshold means. When you think about the lede, it ought to be able to stand on its own as a summary, so why not? Go for it! --RexxS (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, good arguments. I'll put it on my to do list but haven't had much time for Wikipedia lately. Thanks for your work and upkeep on the article! Peace, delldot ∇. 05:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Updated, what do you think? delldot ∇. 05:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That should do the trick. At the very least it will save the arguments with Tarantino fans who can't parse a restrictive subclause. :) --RexxS (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24