Jump to content

User talk:Dank/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Thanks for the bacon

I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your support. Yours in bacon --kelapstick (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

update

Hey Dan - how goes it? .. I noticed that our #NOTMEMORIAL made the May updates ... Cooool! Hey, do you work on this all by yourself, or is there a project, or a group that collects all this stuff? It just seems like an awful lot for one person to handle. — Ched :  ?  19:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Just me so far, but anyone is welcome to jump in any time. - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
(Ched says hesitantly) .. ok, do you have a scratch page you use to work on it? I know they were very close to some minor word changes at WP:V a few days ago, NOTPLOT seems to be getting close to a compromise, the RIP proposal has an RfC open on the talk page, I didn't check, but I assume you knew about the wp:plagiarism being promoted to guideline, (and I removed the word "proposal" from the see also section of wp:copyvio) .. ahhh ... I'll check back on the wp:bio .. I had proposed a suggestion on that talk page a while back, but it's not an active talk page the way some others are. The bottom line is, I know it's there, if I run across anything in my stumbles through the 'pedia, I'll drop you a line. ;) — Ched :  ?  20:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure, you're welcome to jump in, and this would be a good time. I've finished Category:Wikipedia content policies, Category:Wikipedia deletion policies and Category:Wikipedia enforcement policies; all that's left for May is Category:General style guidelines. I have to go run some errands ... if you like, look over the format, and look here for the changes at WT:CITE from Apr 30 to May 31, and record the changes here, and keep moving down the page if you like. I'll be back in about an hour. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I took a shot. You better look it over though Dan. I really wasn't trying to but in here, it's just that I think this is one of the most valuable projects available. I see how you're doing it with the month end diffs and all, I can understand that. I was just curious because I use the wp:update thing all the time.
Oh .. and by the way, going back to that adrev thing, I did know about the move from Dan55 to Dank, and I think it might have been a user "Daniel" that I was remembering. I certainly never found anything that justified my perceptions that I posted. And actually, I did finally remember that I first noticed you because of the quotes you have. In fact, I stole one for my quote page .. lol. Best — Ched :  ?  02:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Great, I'm glad it's useful. If you look at other pages I've done, you'll see I only report changes to content ... I don't report the addition or removal of shortcuts, and I don't report things that function as talk page comments, such as hidden comments, usually. I do report additions or removals from the See also section, because a lot of people think that's important. So ... look at my edits, and if you're ready to tackle another, try WP:EL. The Apr 30 to May 31 diff is here. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why The Default Code page should be deleted

The Default Code has a few singles out now and they are coming out with a new album, "Bucket of Objects." Of course, they are not significant but they exist and I think they deserve a wikipedia article. They have a facebook page and from there you can see their songs on last.fm and their blog on blogspot.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Default-Code/81170674411

There are links on the above website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.3.40 (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the article because User:Pinkfloydbeck said on the talk page, "The band really makes music, and intends to sell it. It's not just a joke, we're serious musicians hoping to strike big." which is pretty much what you're saying. See WP:BAND for what we'd be looking for from reliable sources in a 7-day deletion discussion. Are there any newspaper or magazine articles that focus on the band? - Dank (push to talk) 02:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiple AfDs

User:Tyrenon had created many many AfDs on a related topic of Judo moves, I'd suggested that he integrate them to one two-three multiple listing AfDs based on the reason. I was trying to help him do that, when I realized that this will work only for new AfDs, can you suggest something or let me know how to go about it? There are actually 48 such individual AfDs that need to be combined. I have no opinion on the AfDs, just helping him so that the AfD page doesn't get overloaded. thx -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If the AfDs have all been created already, I don't think it matters whether they're deleted and combined or not; might as well leave them, but put a comment right under the nomination statement for each one, "main discussion for 48 related AfDs is at [link]". - Dank (push to talk) 11:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I think he's done that, I was just concerned because it's 48 AfDs for the same theme of topics, no one's going to look at any of them because they have the same note etc. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

List of convicted computer criminals

Not sure if this is your cup of tea but I need a skilled hand to fix this page. It almost made FAL but was held back because of bad grammar, inconsistency, etc. Needs a good copyedit to whip it into shape! I'd do it but most of the problems on the page are caused by me. Me no good at english -- Esemono (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. I'm going to start writing again soon, but it will take me a while to get my mind in gear, I've been focusing on deletion work. - Dank (push to talk) 11:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Furla

(copied from User talk:Dank/May): Why have you deleted my article about the Furla brand. Similar articles exist on Wikipedia for many popular brands, including Gucci, Prada, Fendi, even the Guess stores have a page. I think that this brand deserves to be in this encyclopedia. Please, comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonius1981 (talk • contribs)

As I mentioned in the edit summary, the article was deleted per WP:CSD#G11, "unambiguous advertising or promotion". Please see our guidelines WP:SPAM and WP:COI. - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Safe rides unlimited

(Copied from User talk:Dank/May): Safe Rides Unlimited is a non-profit, not a business, devoted to reducing drunk driving and it is enjoying success and growth. In response to speedy deletion and request for third-party attribution, I offered the following link:[1] In addition, I discovered another Wikipedia page of related content with links to other similar organizations: [2]. DanD Newton (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you like a 7-day deletion discussion at WP:Articles for deletion about this article? - Dank (push to talk) 17:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Guess you can tell this is my first Wikipedia posting experience. I'd like to avoid a deletion if possible. I'd like to rework the Safe Rides page as necessary to get posted to Wikipedia and perhaps link to other pages like the Designated Driver page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanD Newton (talk • contribs) 04:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bug report on the mass deletion tool

checkY Fixed: Because the script didn't properly encode article titles in the URL, it interpreted the ampersand as a signal for another parameter. —Animum (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Editor review

Hey there — I just wanted to touch base with you on my outstanding review. It's been live without any comment since May 12th, and I just wondered whether in your experience that's a normal delay? Everything else posted from the 24th or earlier has at least one response. Thanks, Mlaffs (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't in response to you, but I'd really like to take a break from thinking about RFA and ER for a while, it will help me focus on deletion and writing. - Dank (push to talk) 14:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki wednesday

CLARIFICATION
Hi dank, i noticed recently that the article created by me wiki wednesday have been deleted by you.iam a volunteer in newly formed wikimedia india chapter,and i have got approval from kiruba shankar a board member of indian chapter.This article is to say people about wiki wednesday and it contribution to promote wikipedia in india.so please allow this article to be posted,waiting for your reply!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarav5891 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please check with the friendly folks at WP:N?, and read WP:Your first article. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Bitter rocc

Hi, I see that you prodded this, and if you would like for me to restore it and prod, I'll be happy to. I deleted because I thought the page fit the mold exactly of {{db-band}}. - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I was in a hurry and did it quick. Thanks a lot! QSUNG 16:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Kulzertec

Hello, yes i work for the company kulzertec. i was trying to insert information about it. How can I make that. I was not advertising it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teixeirafms (talk • contribs) 17:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The link I mentioned, WP:PROMO, will answer some of your questions, and the people at WP:N? may also be helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 17:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have gone to the link you supplied and i think that i am doing everything ok. I have just added the basic information about the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teixeirafms (talk • contribs) 17:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the next step is WP:N?. - Dank (push to talk) 17:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Alliance for Children and Families

Declining G11/db-spam deletion. Options for articles with a long history include reverting, rewriting, talking with a relevant wikiproject, and WP:AfD. - Dank (push to talk) 01:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't aware that having a long history was a reason for declining, but thanks - point taken! :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
You're right, that sounded a bit impersonal, sorry about that. See the db-spam tag in articles; "If promotional content was simply added to an existing article, do not mark it for speedy deletion ..." - Dank (push to talk) 01:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Please allow re-creation of Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee

Hello Dank, I noticed that you were the one who blocked re-creation (quite validly) of the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee article. I've rewritten the article with some extremely reliable sources to prove notability, so could you please unprotect and allow me to move the draft I have sitting at User:Priyanath/Sandbox‎? This is in response to my misguided attempt to go through DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_6. Thank you, Priyanath talk 17:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I read the WP:DRV discussion and I've un-protected it. Regards, - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! regards, Priyanath talk 21:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

WT:RFA#Pretty easy to figure out where consensus is today

I'm leaving talkback notices with everyone who weighed in at the above discussion to see if we can get everyone pulling one way or the other on whether the discretionary range at WP:RfB should change from the current 85-90% (or 80-90%) to 80-85%. (This isn't canvassing because I'm not aiming for 70% in some poll, it's an attempt to anticipate problems and answer objections.) Repeating what I said at WT:RFA:

I think we want a super-consensus, otherwise someone might wind up being or feeling disenfranchised at RFA. I made an argument for 85-90% above [at WT:RFA], here's the counterargument:

  • We could instruct the crats to use 80-85% as a discretionary range and go slow. The worst that could happen would be that it doesn't work and we go back to 85-90%.
  • At RFA, when we say the discretionary range is 70-75%, crats have always taken that to mean that they can easily push the discretionary range to 80% if something "special" (such as canvassing) is going on, so we could say the range is 80-85% with the same understanding.
  • We could add to the instructions: even if a candidate gets 85%, we still feel you should not promote if the rationales from the 15% suggest that some group will wind up being disenfranchised and feeling alienated from the RFA process.
  • We need to be vigilant at RFA to make sure people aren't trying to make a name for themselves to help with crat runs. It shouldn't be hard to stop (just speak up if someone is saying something foolish, which usually happens anyway), and if someone talks a lot of nonsense at RFA and then runs for RFB, tell them about it at the RFB. People will probably figure out what will and won't work over time.
  • If the crats would be a little bit more open about who participates in crat chats, and If the crats would state that they understand that crats who haven't been involved much in RFA shouldn't be making contentious calls solo ... and I think the record shows plainly that they do understand this ... then I think that would help people be less nervous about promoting crat candidates, especially candidates who aren't currently active at RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 12:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
My main problem here is the attempt to boil it down to numbers. I'm all for loosening the standards a little but trying to change discretionary ranges just repeats the problem that we are too often voting when we should be !voting. Yeah, the bar should probably be around 85% for crats to stop that ridiculously high 90% idea from floating around in the minds of people. But if we want to try and reform RFB (and some day RFA) we should change the approach completely. First we should design a list of requirements that are expected from a crat: Knowledge of the crat areas, civility, neutrality, drama-free etc. Then we should split the request into sections for those requirements and allow users to choose whether they believe someone has skill in that section. This way, people would a.) be forced to base their !votes on what is really important for crats and b.) could diversify their !vote outside from simply "support", "neutral" or "oppose". But I fear I'm digressing into utopia here... Point is, while I agree that we have created insanely high standards for crats, I do not see how perpetuating the idea that it comes down to % of support will help very much with the root of the problem. Regards SoWhy 15:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I mostly agree with what Dank said. Something like what he proposed above would be beneficial to the process. I do understand what you're saying, SoWhy, but I think the first step we should take toward improving the workings of RfB would be lowering that bar to 85%. We could then talk about your proposed complete revamp of the RfB process. For now, though, I think lowering that threshold number would make the chances of a qualified candidate being promoted somewhat reasonable, and we would have in place an actual consensus, or super-consensus, for whatever number we set the bar at. Timmeh!(review me) 16:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
"If the crats would be a little bit more open about who participates in crat chats" Er, 'crat chats happen on-wiki; how much more open can we get about them?
Seriously, this whole thread (on WT:RFA) is amazingly baffling, in that it's a lot of discussion that's just stating what already exists. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
You're right, it's hard to follow what I mean by "crat chat", I'll strike. The lowest passing percentage so far at RfB has been 86.7%, so I disagree that we're talking about the same-old same-old here; this is something new. - Dank (push to talk) 16:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually the lowest uncontested pass ever was Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Cimon avaro at 79%. I think it is important to remember that RFB (and RFA for that matter), has never had a "passing percentage" written into policy. Even with all of the endless discussion at WT:RFA, no one has successfully added a line to a policy anywhere. So I suppose change will either occur when it is codified successfully at a lower percentage or if the crats decide to move it lower. RFA has moved over the years from 80% min to pass to where 72% now seems like the lowest that would pass, but crat attempts to move it further to 69%, 67%, and 61% have all faced enormous opposition from the community, so I am not certain that asking for RFB to be moved in the same way would work. And of course people will argue "Why does person Y get to pass at 85% when Quadell and Riana were rejected at higher percentages?". I don't have a good answer. MBisanz talk 17:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay ... the lowest since early 2004 has been 86.7% (I checked). Even a change in the perception of the percentage needed would be a real change with real effects. And I disagree that there are just two options, there's a third option: the community makes a suggestion, and the crats follow the suggestion, and if they don't, we talk about it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm with EVula on this - I'm not sure how to interpret the recent discussions about this, but the most obvious conclusion would be that people simply don't read entire sections (or do research on the topic outside of the current discussion) before commenting. The fact is that we've gone over this before, and change has been effected, even if it isn't apparent to everyone all the time at WT:RFA. We rarely have borderline cases for RfB, so I'm not sure we've had a test case to demonstrate the impact of the RfB bar poll since it was completed... but I don't think that is an argument for ignoring it completely as if it didn't exist. (In the interests of disclosure, I started that particular poll as User:Avruch. Nathan T 18:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

My sense from the discussion in the section above that one is that others would disagree, but I'll let them make the case if they want to. And even if it's true that the "real" discretionary range is now 80-85%, the contrary perception has the real consequence that some experienced, hard-working potential candidates are not running, so if all we achieve from this discussion is "discovering" that the discretionary range has really been 80-85% all along, that's real progress ... especially if we also manage to deal with some of the problems that have been mentioned that might be associated with promoting at 80-85%. - Dank (push to talk) 18:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's the whopping 5-10% range difference that might be scaring off potential RfB candidates. As someone that's been thru the RfB ringer three times, I can honestly say that it's a very pain-in-the-ass process to go thru; that has more to do with people not bothering to run. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Btw folks, also see WT:RFA#Arbitrary break 2 for recent conversations on this, and KingTurtle just made a comment in the current thread that he believes the range is 80-90%. That's at least 3 crats now who have said they believe the upper end is 90% ... so if we got 85% from poll results, it might not solve every problem, but as Rootology pointed out, at least it's a very simple question to ask and answer, and lowering the number would be a clear indication that the community wants things to be easier than they have been. - Dank (push to talk) 12:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there any more discussion about potential objections to 80-85% so that things don't get heated while we're running the poll? - Dank (push to talk) 15:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please consider that it's already been done and not running a false dichotomy (partly in this case a false discretization). Also please consider that the process might be better off without the wasted time of another poll that can't be any more definitive. Sometimes the community's time should be considered and the community's time is better spent on articles, not rehashing the minutiae of a process that only happens a few times a year. - Taxman Talk 18:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
What would be nice is to have some discussion ahead of time so that the poll doesn't get heated and start flying off on tangents ... such as the idea that a change in the discretionary range is "minutiae" (imagine the reaction that would get at RFA), or the idea that everyone's comfortable with having contested RfBs just a "few times a year" ... AFAICT from the discussion, no one's advocating that. - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The aim of Wikipedia is to distill human knowledge into a high quality encyclopedia form. To that aim, various related processes have been created, such as the role of administrators to reduce the impact of negative editing, then bureaucrats to promote them, and the processes of promoting them, each step further removed from the purpose of Wikipedia. A discussion related to the details of the bcrat promotion process is most certainly a detail and it isn't an insult to state that fact. The bureaucrat role is an important one, but as a support role, it like many others, should be done with efficiency and an eye on the main goal. I'm not telling you what to do, but you solicited my input and that is to consider that the good of the community may better be served by not having another poll that isn't closely related to the main purpose of the site. You are free to disregard my input, though I hope you'll at least seriously consider it. - Taxman Talk 19:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with all of that, but what tends to chew up time at (among other places) WT:RFA is resisting changes in consensus that have already happened but haven't been recorded yet. When people are willing to stop fighting and say, "oh, are we doing it that way now? Alright then", then the edits die down. - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. And I suggest the way towards that isn't a new poll, it's just to remind people there already was one and a new one is unlikely to be significantly different or valuable. - Taxman Talk 20:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

To be a little more direct: The problem I'm having, and I think a few others have the same feeling, is that some of this discussion has proceeded as though the last poll were irrelevant. A lot of work went into that poll, we managed to get a lot of people participating, it had a definitive outcome in the view of most, and I think it would be quite unfortunate if we went along as though the status quo entirely excluded it. When folks speak as though it never happened, they implicitly discredit the result. I'm not too sure what the point of a new poll would be - my sense is that it was proposed because folks were unaware that it had already been done. I do understand that it was more than a year ago, but we haven't exactly been overrun with RfB's since then and I don't think we've had any finish right on the edge. Rather than trying to determine exactly what a new poll should ask participants, some pre-pre-poll groundwork is in order:

  • In view of the entirety of the history here, what questions remain unresolved?
  • What would a new poll attempt to achieve that separates it from prior polls and discussion?
  • Is nailing down a more definitive answer on whether the discretionary range is 80-85 or 80-90 worth the inevitable agita of a poll, particularly if we don't arrive at a definitive result?
  • Did we perhaps not do enough work at the end of the last poll in communicating its outcome to the community? Can we rectify that now, either by editing RfB-related documents to reflect the outcome? Or do we need an entirely new process to make it legitimate?

Questions I think we need to answer before we think about designing a new poll. Nathan T 21:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with the importance of all of Nathan's questions. It would be good for people to re-read the previous poll, and if we don't get a fair amount of discussion in the next 24 hours, then I'll be ready to agree with Taxman that this isn't the right time for a new poll. There hasn't been enough discussion of the potential problems of shifting the discretionary range (and we know what those problems are), which means people don't want to talk about it right now. That's fine, but we know that this means two things: the 90% figure and the disheartening uncertainty over what's required both remain, meaning we'll miss out on some good crat candidates who decide they have better things to do, and since we can't get people to discuss the questions in a general context, they will be discussed during all of the 80-90% RfB runs ... and the context will make it easier to reach consensus in any one particular RfB, but displacing this drama from WT:RFA (where it should be) into individual RfBs won't be fair to the candidates, or appealing to the potential candidates. We do a lot better with this at RFA now than we did 15 months ago, which is one of many reasons why I think a new discussion might get new results, but it doesn't look look like it's happening at the moment. - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

1941 Florida hurricane

I added a pretty interesting and personal quotebox to the preparations section, which might help to alleviate your concerns somewhat. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

My feeling is that it makes the article more like an FA ... I think you should keep it, although some reviewers may think it's too fluffy. Got anything else? - Dank (push to talk) 19:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 Checking... –Juliancolton | Talk 20:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I have all the good details; the newspaper articles are becoming more and more repetitive as I search... –Juliancolton | Talk 20:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'm checking www.newspaperarchive.com. - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thehurricanearchive.com is actually more useful, for what it's worth. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I get nothing. Anything else we could add would probably be WP:OR, so I think we're done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
← Just wanted to let you know I got a fair-use image of some damage after a discussion with a few other editors. At the very least, it makes the article a bit more educational/interesting. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that article was recreated...

However if I'm wrong my apologies and thank you for letting me know. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This is about Jack Town I think. Was it re-created twice, that is, created 3 times? I only see two times under that name. - Dank (push to talk) 23:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
onLY THE TWICE BUT NO BIG DEAL TO WAIT IF IT HAPPENS AGAIN. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Adducted thumb syndrome = Christian syndrome

Hello. May you be able to make a redirect of the currently protected Christian syndrome page to Adducted thumb syndrome as it is a valid synnonum of the term. Evidence is provided here: [3] (The term Christian comes from the individuals surname that published the findings) and here: [4]. There is also this: [5]. To prevent further vandalism after making the redirect, feel free to leave the protection of that page on as required. Thank you. Calaka (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on the links you gave me, redirects should be made to Adducted thumb syndrome from Christian's syndrome I (with and without the 's), and Christian's syndrome 1 (with and without the 's). I'd rather leave "Christian syndrome" protected because I don't see that in your links, and also due to 3 incidents of vandalism. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm that is odd, I tried to find the "Christian syndrome 2" (as that would be the only reason a 1 is placed after the term) but can't seem to find one. Was the vandalism actually in re: the condition or was it just nonsense? Anyway, I managed to find two more links that call it as Christian syndrome: [6] and [7]. Anyway whatever the case, wouldn't it be possible to protect the redirect page? If no, then I would be willing to wait a few months until there is less vandalism (I got this condition from a list of diseases page ans that list isin't going anywhere anytime soon)! Cheers!Calaka (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the new links. I've unprotected the page so you can add that redirect, and I'll keep an eye on it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem! Thank you for unprotecting it. I will watch the page as well just in case anything comes up. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Csdhelper

Hi
I just found User:Ale jrb/Scripts/csdhelper.js which I believe is able to downgrade CSDs to PRODs. It doesn't do everything you requested, but ...
Cheers, Amalthea 15:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 15:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

1941 Florida hurricane

Thanks for the copyediting help! –Juliancolton | Talk 17:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Has it been promoted already? Dabomb87 says he has more comments coming. - Dank (push to talk) 17:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2009; obviously I'll happily address any more comments Dabomb has. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
\o/ - Dank (push to talk) 18:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Marek and Associates

Hello. I recently googled Marek and Associates and found the wiki page, but after googling it again today I found it had been deleted. I am interested in restoring it and possibly adding biographical information to it. I guess I am hoping to find out if the page can be restored because based on other agencies I've googled which are of similar nature (Ford Models, IMG, NEXT, etc). It seems that the Marek and Associates page was fairly new and was not given the chance for modification.
Should the original creator not be interested in recreating the page (upon your approval) I would like to take over that task. I understand the need for neutrality and would make that my utmost consideration to prevent the page from being deleted again.
The fashion/art world is not very transparent, and when information does become available on a source like Wikipedia, it is nice for those not so involved to be able to access any sort of information. --- Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Letitbe070 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

First read WP:PROMO and WP:Your first article, then ask the nice folks at WP:N? for help. - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the info, I looked at the pages and also searched for more relevant biographical information on the agency. I hope I am in compliance with all necessary regulation, and started a talk page to explain my actions. I'm pretty sure the page is as neutral as can be, and hopefully similar pages for other agencies will be added soon to further the transparency of the fashion industry! Letitbe070 (talk)Letitbe070 —Preceding undated comment added 15:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC).

You can also click on the bubble at the top of this page for chat help. - Dank (push to talk) 15:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Agropedia

An article that you have been involved in editing, Agropedia, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agropedia. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Sandor Clegane (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll watch for now. - Dank (push to talk) 16:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't understand why you keep deleting Monica's Bridal Co. Wiki

The wiki I posted up differs in no way shape or form from other wiki's of its sort, perfect example is David's Bridal, In Fact the wiki I wrote is much more informative and is an inspiring story of the American dream. Needless to say I have nothing to do with Monica's Bridal Co. but did interview them and used information found on their website. Also the list of brands they carry was purely for keyword purpose. From what I've notice Dank you like to delete posts that you have no interest in, But its not WikiDankPedia its Wikipedia and if something has a history worthy of speaking about you my friend should not be the end all!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firewirehth (talk • contribs) 19:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm following rules that have been agreed on by Wikipedians, but I agree that those rules don't always produce the results we want. Read Your first article, then show the friendly folks at WP:N? a copy of your article and they should be able to tell you what we need. - Dank (push to talk) 21:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete the page on After The Ordeal?

Why did you delete this page?

There was nothing wrong with it, it had only been put up today and had some very interesting info on it about a new upcoming band who have become very significant as they will be playing on the mainstage at this years download festival via video link from their bedroom, making it the first virtual gig,

So why was this page deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.191.234 (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Same answer as the one just above this, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 21:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Useragropedia

It appears after you blocked User:Agropedia, User:Useragropedia popped up and began editing the article.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think he's getting the message. - Dank (push to talk) 23:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Award

Thank you. It's much appreciated. Maybe when I have more time, I can contribute more Japan-related content. --Calton | Talk 08:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Good work. - Dank (push to talk) 11:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Did youi miss?

Did you miss the download here button at the end of the article? That was the reason I though inappropriate. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about WBlite? - Dank (push to talk) 15:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
yees sir I was sorry for not including the link. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Inappropriate links can be handled by removing the link (although I tend not to do this myself when I prod or take an article to AfD, because it helps when people are all looking at the same article when deciding whether to delete). I decline db-spam speedy deletion on the majority of articles that describe software. There have been a lot of discussions about WP:CSD#A7 not applying to software, and a lot of that thinking is just as valid for G11/db-spam. Also, unlike a new article about a one-location retail store, for instance, articles about software are often written by people who use the software instead of by the people who profit from the software. (By the way, the way I invited discussion was to add the project tag for WP:COMPUTING; they know to check Wikipedia:COMPUTING#Proposed deletion.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
That will work for me, thanks for looking into and taking time to answer my concerns! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
You're quite welcome, I'm a fan of your work. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sophocles

Congratulations on the new user-name. If you still follow GA, would you have a look at Talk:Sophocles/GA1? Perhaps you can see some way to get through the communication gap there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a shout, Sept, it's an interesting question. I'm a bit rusty, but I better get out the oil can before User:Shappy/Amazing Race Wikipedia starts up. Replied there, although I'm not sure how helpful I was. - Dank (push to talk) 18:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Replied there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee

Hi, and thanks for deleting the subject page. Please note that it is back.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's gone again, at least under that title. Let me know if there's another one flying around somewhere. - Dank (push to talk) 23:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

GWI global water intelligence

I rewrote this to draw more attention to the initiatives by the company, but it doesn't seem to be enough. How can I amend it to make it satisfactory?

Please ask the friendly folks at WP:N?, or click on the bubble at the top of this page for live chat help. - Dank (push to talk) 12:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Award

Thank you very much for the award. It's nice to see that my work is being appreciated ! Passportguy (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent work! - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the barnstar!

Many thanks for the star and for the kind words! And im likewise happy to see confirmation that my CSD tags are apparently not as overzealous as they once were :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)

Yes, I see you've been doing this a long time, and it shows. - Dank (push to talk) 12:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ghost Town Redirect

Hi, just seen that you deleted the redirect for Ghost Town that I tagged as speedy delete. Sorry, I put the wrong tag on. Didn't see that there was a special tag for redirects. ɪntəsvɛnsk 21:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, thanks for your tagging work. The band album article itself is harder; I think I'm going to A9 it. - Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

CSY

Do you mind if I put the deleted content for Caribbean sailing yachts in the editor's sandbox for further work? I think there's an article in there once it's cleaned up a bit. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're keeping an eye on it, I have no problem with that. I see he's re-created the article and said that the company has been out of business since 1980; however, note that the deleted article said that another company was now making the same boats, so I took it as promotional of the new company. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I've explained a couple of the issues to him and will see what I can do in the way of copyediting out some of the marketing-speak that still pervades the article. I don't think the article was intended to promote the mew company, but there's ample opportunity for confusion. Acroterion (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Marg Swarnabhoomi

Any specific reason why the page needs to be deleted? Shrirambr (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not my call, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marg Swarnabhoomi. People will give opinions, and at the end of 7 days, some uninvolved person (probably an admin) will make a decision. Please join our discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Caribbean sailing Yachts Entry

The user Acroterion suggested you might be interested in looking at an entry for CSY boats [[8]] It is my first attempt at a Wikipedia article. The CSY owner's group has their own website and was looking at building a page on the website to keep all of the information about these boats in one place - I suggested Wikipedia. My first submission was removed because it was seen as an 'advertisement' (although the company was out of business since the early 1980s). I have done some work on the entry but would welcome your thoughts, edits, or inputs if you have the time or inclination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSYguy (talk • contribs) 15:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest posting the link at WP:N?, or click on the bubble at the top of the page for chat help. - Dank (push to talk) 15:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

MiniHostels - I apologize for constantly saving and checking instead of previewing

Dan - The information that I have provided about MiniHostels is important and significant. I have added other sources that you have not seen yet such as www.qweb.com (please see the updated profile that I have been working on. Also, although MiniHostels does not have presence in google archives, it still deserves a place in Wikipedia. I would like the page to be recreated. I am a new user, but I am reading about the things that you suggested and I will improve my editing skills on Wikipedia. Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Street123 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I do plan to look at the page in your userspace, in a week. There are many people on Wikipedia that can give you good advice; I mentioned WP:N?, and you can also get chat-help by clicking on the bubble at the top of my page. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dan! I am having someone review the updated page now. I will keep working at it until it meets requirements. Thanks for the advice, and feel free to offer more suggestions if you have the time. Street123 (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)street123

Hey Dan - I was wondering if you wouldn't mind looking at my article before next week. I have spoke with someone from the chat room (killiondude) who was VERY helpful, and he helped me with references and deleting information that I could not source (i.e. vision, mission). I am not in a hurry for the article to be accepted, because I do want it to meet the fair requirements, but any other suggestions before potentially deleting the article would be greatly appreciated. (killiondude) said that it is lacking references, but it might survive with the ones I have given. I wish he was able to give me a % chance. I can try to find more, but the ones that I provide (Lonely Planet, The Argentimes, Vivirenargentina) all support the information I have written in the article. I have read the recommended reading you offered, and I feel that it is ok. Anyway, I would appreciate any feedback ahead of time, and if not I understand. Thanks again. Street123 (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)street123


    • ALSO - Can you please delete the following article for me: Daniel E Rosenberg Thanks! Pasted below is what happened:

Hi Eugene - Please completely DELETE the page Daniel E Rosenberg I am a new editor for Wikipedia, and I am quickly learning how things go. I thought that by deleting all of the content of this page, then Wikipedia would simply delete it from its site. This page should be completely deleted. Thank you for your time. Street123 (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Street123 Ask an administrator. Thanks for the message - Eugene Krabs (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Street123 (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)street123

Thank you

Thanks much for the "speedy" award. I'm always happy to contribute. Wperdue (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)wperdue

I've been seeing your tagging as long as I've been deleting, and it's always seemed like high-quality work. - Dank (push to talk) 00:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Rare Book Room

Hi,

I'm not disputing your decision, but seeking your advice. If you peeked at the article, you can see that it is entirely promotional in nature. That said, I have to admit it's promoting a pretty cool website! Anyhow, the article history is long in time, but short in number of edits and content.

It also fits the db:spam criteria in that it promotes one thing (the website, which is run by a for-profit rare book seller) and would require a complete overall to make encyclopedic. Personally I do not relish rewriting an advertisement to make it look like it isn't one. It seems disingenous at best.

How do you recommend we proceed? I think the only reason it's there is because it slipped through the cracks--that, and well--it is a pretty cool website that it's advertising. Perhaps that's reason enough to keep it?

I'm interested in your thoughts on this. Thanks for your time! It was a dark and stormy night. (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your tagging work. My edit summary was "Declining G11/db-spam deletion. Options for articles with a long history may include rewording or talking with a relevant wikiproject." I don't have any issue with your judgment, it's just that there's a fair amount of support for the principle that 2 people can't bilaterally overrule the many people who edited the article in the 2 years and 3 months it's been around, and many more who passed over it, silently assenting. I would have no objection if you would like to take it to AfD, but I haven't decided yet how I would vote at AfD. Do you want to AfD it? - Dank (push to talk) 03:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry--I don't know what AfD is--there's still alot I don't know about Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on which wikiproject might be most relevant? I'm also wondering if it couldn't be merged with another article on rare books or something. That way it wouldn't look like there's an article whose sole purpose is to promote a website. I'll look around to see if there isn't something it could be merged with. It was a dark and stormy night. (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem. Usually when someone uses a 3 or 4 letter abbreviation, you'll get to the right page if you put a WP: in front of it ... I was talking about WP:AfD. That's probably not the best direction to go; try leaving a message at WT:BOOK. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazing Race Wikipedia

Hello, Dank. Welcome to the Amazing Race Wikipedia. In your travels, you will encounter two types of tasks. In a Detour, you have a choice between two tasks. Both of you must work together on this. In a Roadblock, one team member must work on a task alone. Your Amazing Race Wikipedia submissions page is located here. Enjoy the competition! Best, Shappy (talk · contribs) and Firestorm (talk · contribs). 19:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User Name

I can't help but laugh at your username, My sister used to have a crazy cat named Dank and I smoke it so I love it! Even if that wasn't your purpose It makes me smile. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's intended to suggest different things to different people, so you're welcome to laugh :) Dan K. is my real name. - Dank (push to talk) 15:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Okie dokie then, no where near what I had in mind. LolHell in a Bucket (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Long history, eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metro_San_Antonio&diff=296972488&oldid=82133805

So, that's a long history? It looks like 2 years of a blank sitting around, to me. It looks like an empty article that has been hogging name space for 2 years without any content at all, but a number of people too timorous to delete it. And so it continues. Long live templates and boxes with nothing in them! Utgard Loki (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

2006 is a long time ago, and the article used to have a little more than it does now. WP:PROD combined with notifying the relevant wikiproject would work for me, and if someone de-prods it for some reason but doesn't improve it or explain why, WP:AfD would probably get rid of it in a hurry. - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
To clarify ... the problem isn't deleting it, I'm all for that (although reminding the project or people involved would be helpful), the problem is two people getting together and making something vanish when ... usually, but not always ... the fact that it sat around for so long means that people had plans for it, plans that just haven't materialized yet. An extra week after 2.5 years won't make that much difference, and it's not hard to do a prod (see the section just below this one). - Dank (push to talk) 19:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

American Dad! (season 1)

Hello Dank. Useless fork and copyright violation are not enough reasons for speedy deletion? --Ilion2 (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Copying a wikipedia page to another wikipedia page isn't copyright violation (although not attributing it is a license problem), and "useless fork" isn't one of the reasons listed at WP:CSD. WP:PROD will probably work (just add {{subst:prod|reason goes here}} to the top of the article), and if the prod tag is removed, let me know and I'll WP:AfD it for you. - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Rehobeth middle school

I see you declined the speedy on Rehobeth middle school with a summary of "Declining speedy deletion while I ask the article creator which school this is." Did you ever get a response? I'm guessing it's probably this one (administrators match up). Think it's worthwhile to exand, go for a redirect, or prod? (watchlisting)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get an answer, and thanks for matching it up. I don't have a preference myself, but I believe WP:WPSCH likes to redirect middle schools to the school district unless there's something special going on. - Dank (push to talk) 22:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 Done and thanks for the reply.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

New Article

This wasn't/isn't you, by any chance? TNXMan 13:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, this is the first I've heard of him. I get a lot of ghits on "Manly tales of cowardice", his webcomic, so I guess he's legit. - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for your time and help in my RfA. I also wanted to mention that I'd like to get more involved in the wp:update thing. I think it's one of the most important and valuable things going on out there. When do you usually start checking the diffs? Please poke me when you start the July thing. I see so many editors and admins alike not aware of changes that are being made, I want to keep up with what is current, and help where I can. Thank you again Dan, your help and support has meant more to me than you probably realize. — Ched :  ?  04:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Ched, I would very much appreciate your help, and congratulations on your new cleaning implement. I generally wait until the last day of the month (UTC) to get to work. - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Ched, try working on the update so far this month for one of the style guidelines pages, so you can get a feel for it. I'd like to help someone else get started on the style guidelines in time for the June update. - Dank (push to talk) 22:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
OK .. will Monday afternoon / evening be a good time? I'll remember to remove my -4 from the UTC. I hadn't thought about that, glad you pointed it out. — Ched :  ?  02:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 02:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of SWARL page at May 30

Hi, Is there anything can be done to restore the SWARL (Short Wave Amateur Radio Listening) article? It's not quite cleat to me why that was speedy deleted? Of course I read the discussion about it but the final decision looks to me too quick. I would rather give some notices on the content and let the author fix it. I feel like I have to explain the situation around SWARL: There was a SWARL Yahoo group and the informational website that comes up at first if you make search for SWARL in google. Both of those have been created by Steve Carter who passed it on to the crew with Marshall Cubitt (I'm member of this crew - Yury Bondarenko, you can see the full list of the crew at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SWARL/ and the URL of our site there too, which is http://swarl.org) SWARL Yahoo group is one of the largest groups on this topic, and the site swarl.org contains supporting information (read: club information) According to Steve Carter, he does not have access to the old site of SWARL and he tried to convince hoster of it to remove content of it, but with no success. So, SWARL has desided to start a new site http://swarl.org , it is very new site and there are not many links to it yet, but we are working on links corrections. The article about SWARL on Wikipedia was containing the most important info about our club and we would really like to restore it. If we need to correct our article in any way, please inform me. I could see there is an article about ARRL and our club is no lesser importance to SWLs in the world as ARRL to American HAMs. There are only three organizations left in the world that issue international SWL call signs and keep track of them. We have got 794 SWL call signs issued and this number increases every day. tere is a big interest in SWLing among people who has receiver. Well I hope I didnt take too much of your time by this explanation and really hope to get our article on Wikipedia back.

Brack11 (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The article was actually deleted on June 6 per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swarl by User:Fritzpoll. I concentrate on speedy deletion; my role was to take it out of the speedy deletion queue so that the voters could decide, and I'm not great with explaining AfD discussions. Try any of the voters in that discussion, or the deleting admin, Fritzpoll. - Dank (push to talk) 20:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Dank, I will try as you suggested —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brack11 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Note to speedy deletion taggers

I hope to see a lot of conversations at WT:CSD over the next month on the finer points of db-org, db-bio, db-web (WP:CSD#A7) and db-spam (WP:CSD#G11) speedy deletions. Feel free to weigh in. Also, my "shift" is 9am to 1pm weekdays Eastern US time (13:00 - 17:00 UTC weekdays), and if you tag something with A7 or G11 between those hours, there's a good chance I'll handle it unless someone else gets to it first. Please feel free to ask questions or object to any of my calls. - Dank (push to talk) 14:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I just got an email that says I've been invited to participate in a 2-week study on Barack Obama articles, so for the next 2 weeks, I'll cover G11 but not A7. - Dank (push to talk) 16:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Maritza Davila

{{help}} My page was deleted on JUN 19 about Maritza Davila and I ask if you can restore it being that it is not about a campaign but a biography of her political and community board career. If you decide not to restore it can you please put it up for deletion review for the board to decide

Just to be clear, I wasn't involved; it was tagged or edited by Ttonyb1 and Bearian and deleted per {{db-bio}} by Keeper76. All 3 of those guys know what they're doing, but the speedy deletion process isn't meant to be perfect, just "speedy" and even-handed ... that is, it's not the last word. Try describing the article at WP:N? or clicking on the bubble at the top of this page. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 22:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Rack and Ruin records

Hey there, I have just been looking on Wikipedia, and was going to create a page for a project that I have been working on since April 2008. I noticed that somebody else had already tried to create the page, but it was removed by yourself. A couple of our artists are already listed on Wikipedia, and links to the label exist there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_duck_dispensary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macadamia_Brothers

The label in question is Rack & Ruin records, which is one of the busiest and most successful netlabels. We have over 120 releases to date, and have had our artists played on radio stations, podcasts, and even on short movie soundtracks

http://www.jerrywaynewhitejr.com/videos/the-sword-and-the-sheath

Our artists have appeared on numerous blogs, as well as physical magazines, such as Analogue in Ireland. Searching "Rack & Ruin records" will provide you with a huge list of links of places where the label has been talked about and discussed. The label is a netlabel, and therefore it doesn't produce physical copies of releases, just free mp3's that the public can download for no cost. This is a fairly new process, and sites such as Allmusic do not list netlabels, however with Rack & Ruin being one of the busiest, largest and most active, then I feel that an article on the label would be of interest.

Regards

Dean Birkett www.rackandruinrecords.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fynci (talk • contribs) 13:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

We actually have a lot of people experienced both in music labels and in the application of our WP:BAND policy (although articles on the labels themselves generally have to meet the WP:ORG standard) ... and I'm not one of those people. Try posting your question at WT:MUSIC, and best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sii diploma

I'd like to understand better why you declined this CSD and ask instead for a merge. Did you see something in that article that is worth merging?--RadioFan (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Conceivably, the specific areas covered by the diploma are worth merging, but it's also possible that that's not of value, in which case AfD or prod would be fine. I considered discussing the question of db-spam for this one at WT:CSD, but then decided that we basically have this issue covered. If there's no WP:COI in the username or evidenced by the creator's edits, and if the language of the article allows the possibility that it could have been created by someone who likes or uses the subject of the article rather than by someone who personally benefits from promoting it, and if there's no evidence of copying or paraphrasing from the company's publications, then it's not db-spam. (If there is copying or paraphrasing, then that may be db-copyvio and it's a problem even if it isn't. It may or not also be db-spam, depending on promotional language and the general editing pattern of the article creator.) Thanks for asking. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

RE : Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

Non-compliance to the above are grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling.

The probation on articles relating to Barack Obama will be reviewed by a group of involved and non-involved editors and administrators to see how effective it has been. The process will last two weeks. After the two weeks elapse, the working group will provide their findings to us and the community, and will outline how the article probation will run in the future.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 15:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

GA reviewers, learn your trade

I have now seen two deplorable reviews in the GA sweeps. I can only conclude that many GA reviewers don't know our guidelines and don't have any common sense. See

  • Talk:Sophocles/GA1. Ended happily at last. But for the other, I would have accepted the apology and let it end quietly.
  • Talk:Special relativity/GA1. Under review now, by a reviewer who clearly joins the prevalent hallucination that there can never be too many footnotes.

Please train your troops. If you can think of a middle recourse between letting this irrelevant meddling continue and moving to declare the process historic, do let me know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

PM, still griping about GA after over two years?---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
No, newly griping over fresh evidence of incompetence; such gripes can be ended by fixing the system. One of Dank's benefits is that he is fresh blood. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't have time for new projects right now. - Dank (push to talk) 19:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

adminship

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

Editing questions

Ok, I've been using WP for a while and just recently started editing and watching recent changes/new pages. It seems I do the most work with blanking and other vandalism. Are there any uw templates you suggest for certain things? I've been using uw-vandalism's for now, starting by undoing their edits and making an entry on their talk page. Is there anything else I should be doing? Or better ways to do it? Also are there any qualifications to recieve the rollback tool? 19:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any messages for me on your talk page. I don't do much with vandalism and WP:PERM. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

need a favor

Could you have a look at Meeting diary, I've got a possible COI with the subject mater here (not this company or website) and want to stay out of it but I notice that a speedy tag was placed there by another editor and then removed by 59.97.168.203 (talk · contribs) who's only edits are this article, smells like a sock to me. Also the creator's username, Meetingdiary (talk · contribs) may be promotional and violate policy. I'd like someone else to look at it though. --RadioFan (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That was fast, thanks for looking into it.--RadioFan (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for catching it. FYI for anyone interested in the issue: when User:Meetingdiary creates an article about a cool new web application called "Meeting diary", that's an automatic db-spam speedy deletion, and if they aren't going wild with spamming articles and links, then they get a "soft block" for that account (i.e., a neutral warning, "this may not be a reflection on you, you're encouraged to create a new account", that sort of thing, and the block doesn't cover any IP, just that particular username). - Dank (push to talk) 13:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

MiniHostels - do I wait to hear from you about this article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Street123/MiniHostels

Have you taken a look at this article since the last week when you held off from taking further action? After getting some help from people, I believe it meets the requirement of a legit article. Hoping to hear from you soon. Street123 (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC) street123

It's a judgment call. I don't think it needs to be deleted from your userspace, but my guess ... and this is just a guess ... is that it won't survive if you move it back to articlespace. You might want to show the current version to people at WP:N?. - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I actually have showed it to 2 different people at WP:N and they helped me trim the fat and also help me with references. They said the same thing, that it's a judgment call. I'm going to add it again and see what happens. Thanks Dan. Street123 (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC) street123

Email of Deleted

Could you email me Steinman (cocktail) please? Not sure if you have my email stored or not from admin things but tell me if you don't. Cliffsteinman (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't have email enabled on your account. The article was deleted in 2007. Here's the whole text: "A Steinman was invented around September of 2006 at Ohio University by a university student. This drink traditionally contains enough Cherry Invisible KoolAid to cover the bottom of a glass followed by a shot of 100 proof Smirnoff Triple-Distilled Vodka. These two should be mixed for a couple of seconds to allow the mix to begin disolving. 12 ounces of Sprite are then added to complete the drink." - Dank (push to talk) 20:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to delete the article I have started.

Hi, since there aren't any sources that are official. It's also being spammed so deleting it would be a good idea. The article is Menudo_(homebrew) its allready marked for deletion

Please make your request at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menudo (homebrew), the page where they're discussing the deletion for this article. - Dank (push to talk) 20:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

My pet peeves

Hi Dank. I was going to wait until after my RFA concludes to ask you this, but I see no good reason not to do it now. I do mean this in the nicest way, and I am by no means trying to get you to strike your oppose. Would you mind explaining how you think having a pet peeves list on my user page would impair my ability to be an effective admin? Thanks. Timmeh 23:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind you asking at all. Do you mind if I move this conversation to the talk page of your RFA? - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Nope. Go right ahead. Timmeh 00:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Done. - Dank (push to talk) 16:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Musicmagic1

I declined the db-spam on User:Musicmagic1 because it's possible it was written by a fan rather than by someone trying to promote the band.

So noted. Admittedly a wobbler when it comes to blocking, but I thought the spammy quality was obvious, fan-written or no. --Calton | Talk 14:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Same time as you were writing this, I was adding a bit (copied): It's a tough call, because db-spam includes articles written by fans who are just kind of mindlessly and automatically repeating promotional materials ... it's a judgment call. Generally I'm happy with your judgment calls, but I'm always searching for consensus on what is and isn't db-spam. - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Btw ... since this material had already moved to articlespace and been edited, getting rid of some of the promotionalism, I replaced the text on the userpage with a link to the article, and I edited the article for neutrality. I've got the user page and article watchlisted, and if promotionalism re-appears, I'd be open to looking at db-spam for this. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
(copied) Yes, but still most of it is copy/pasted from here (or another original source). – B.hotep •talk• 15:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Oops! Sorry Calton, you're right, this was a copy of promotional materials. Let me see if I can get a neutral editor interested in the page that's in articlespace. - Dank (push to talk) 16:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

[9] which edit summary was inaccurate, please? Thanks much! KillerChihuahua?!? 17:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Copying from here: On the other questions: this is in no way the fault of either of you, there's a pendulum that was swinging one way for about a year (less contentious, more useful and nuanced arguments on policy pages) that has just over the last two months started swinging back the other way. In this new environment, it would be better for me not to say anything about anything, but just record changes and let things play out as they will. So, in this spirit: I withdraw everything I've said in this thread, and sorry for the trouble. - Dank (push to talk) 17:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't answer my question. If my edit summaries are inaccurate, I'd like to know. I don't see how that has any bearing on the policy page discussion. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Any talk page stalkers around who want to weigh in? I promised to drop the matter. Btw, KC, reading that diff again makes me realize that I worded this part poorly: "I would imagine that people who have actually been keeping up with changes in the policy pages don't need to use Google searches to tell them what Wikipedia policy pages say and have said." You might have taken that as a slap, but I meant that to apply to me, not you; I was trying to say that I don't believe I need a Google search to remind me what policy pages say, that's something I keep up with. - Dank (push to talk) 02:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any clue why you "promised to drop the matter", you had annoyed no one and no one had anything but appreciation for your participation; further, I thought you were simply saying you were bowing out of the policy discussion, which this is not part of. Finally, the google search was not a search of what policy pages say, as I have noted before; regardless of who you intended that comment to reach, it presumes the search was intended to reveal what policy pages say and that was most emphatically not the intent. I confess utter confusion at your entire post. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm dropping this particular matter because you and I didn't understand each other from the first; I'm hoping someone else will jump in and answer any remaining questions you have. I'm dropping interaction on any of the pages covered by WP:Update because the update isn't just mindlessly copying diffs, it's a series of judgment calls about which changes are significant and how to report them, and it won't be useful unless people on all sides of every debate continue to trust my summary. (I apologize for the "ownership" language ... I was hoping for a long time that someone else would jump in, take over part of it, and do it right, but apparently that's not going to happen.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) The only question I currently have is [10] which edit summary was inaccurate, please? Thanks much! which is how I started this thread. You are the only one who knows what you were talking about; I would prefer you not go on about the policy page discussion and simply identify which edit summary you meant. Seriously, you're making this incredibly complicated and its a simple query. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It was my first comment in the section, here. If someone else agrees with that and thinks that the general point about edit summaries on policy pages is worth debating, they'll say so. If they don't, there's nothing to fix, because I've already retracted my comments. - Dank (push to talk) 14:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh! Well, thank you for (finally) clarifying, much appreciated. That didn't hurt that much, now, did it? :-) KillerChihuahua?!? 14:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The Apostolic Reformation

Hi Dank, You have deleted my article on The aposotlic Reformation. I Was still working on that as it was raw and incomplete. Do you have the expertise on the subject so that you can justify the deletion. And if you cannot satisfy then why this encyclopedia is created? The subject I am working is to do with a part of Christian philosophy which is well recognised and needs to be Documented. If this is deleted then the credibility of wikipedia will be questioned by millions who are following these philosophy. Can you highlight on how I can work on it? Ajay 20:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajayphillips (talk • contribs)

It wasn't (only) my decision; see WP:Articles for deletion/The Apostolic Reformation - Dank (push to talk) 20:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization of people/boilerplate fact policy

The Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines on this topic has stalled, presumably because Kotniski jumped in without even checking how the page in question was used.

As a matter of security, my common response to finding two sections that are/were identical is to put them in one basket, and watch that basket! But nobody else really seems to remember how to onlyinclude pages, and why that's in the software.

So, here's my suggestion: Let's subst: it back into the specific Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and leave only a pointer in the general Wikipedia:Categorization of people, so there's no duplication. Would that be acceptable to you?
-- watching here --William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds great, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 23:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 Done. I'll see what I can do about the parallel language at WP:GRS#Sexuality, too.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I've been around for years (and wrote some significant sections of policy and guidelines), and wasn't aware of your new WP:UPDATE. I'd add that the example was merged from Wikipedia:Categorization of people. I'm often looking back through histories for precedent, and knowing where to look is useful to me, so it might be useful to somebody else.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Replying at WT:BLP. - Dank (push to talk) 01:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you delete Wikipedia:Categorization of people/boilerplate fact policy and its Talk redirect‎, db-g7? Debresser (another person that opposed everything everywhere I'm involved) deleted the template.
--William Allen Simpson (talk)

I'm sorry, I can't do speedy deletions on pages where I was in any way involved in the discussion. If for some reason an admin doesn't get to it soon or declines the deletion, I would bet that you wouldn't have to wait the full 7 days at WP:MfD to get it deleted. I can MfD it for you if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 21:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Technically, I'm not supposed to put back a db after somebody else has deleted it, so I'd appreciate the MfD nomination. Thanks!
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Stonewall riots

I note you reverted my amendment to Stonewall riots. You mention the article's talk page in your revert summary, however I can find no discussion of Warsaw Pact reference in either the talk page or its archives. I am not clear what information is intended to be conveyed by the reference to the Warsaw Pact, other than whatever implication (presumably) American readers might take away from it as an artifact of the Cold War. Regardless, other than as a rhetorical flourish, the reference is completely unrelated to the rest of the article. If the reference is intended to reflect a particular opinion of the author the phrase should at least appear in quotation marks. I must say, however, that while I am confident that it would have sounded like quite an outrageous comparison to Americans in the 1960s-1980s, it is a comparison that has minimal resonance today, particularly outside of the US. In fact, from my perspective it sounds quite quaint and anachronistic, not to mention implying shades of POV, while you yourself agree that it is "a bit jarring". Several significant references have already been distilled for the sake of this encyclopedic article and I am unclear why a bit more culling for the sake of appealing to an international readership and a preference for facts over quaint, dated rhetoric undermines the quality of what is otherwise an excellent article. AngoraFish 木 13:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful, and I copied it to Talk:Stonewall_riots#Edits_today with a note there. - Dank (push to talk) 13:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your intervention on my talk page. If anything was guaranteed to inflame the already uneasy relations between content contributors and administrators, a block would have been it. I wish you could keep the one called 'Chillum' away, please. Peter Damian (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually not very good with blocking issues in general, which is why I brought up WP:ANI. If that trip is necessary, then there are lots of guys there who will figure out what to do. I do try to speak up when someone proposes a block that I think runs the risk of making the situation muddier rather than clearer, at least if it's done before a wider discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 16:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted article

you proposed this article for speedy deletion a while back: RealFreeMedia and its returned as RealFreeMedia Corp.. i dont want to appear like im obsessed by this user, but it seems he is gaming the system. ive already tagged it as you can see, but i just wanted you to know as you seem to handle a lot of this kind of stuff. im trying to be polite with him, and to his credit he has not responded negatively (but he hasnt responded at all). thanks for your time. and i am of course fine with this article staying if the creator or anyone can provide sourcing and make it less promotional, but i tried and couldnt find anything to help this article out.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I see it was just deleted as A7, and I would have added G11 to that because the username of the page creator is one of the principals of the company. The article was deleted 3 times and salted under the name RealFreeMedia, so I've just salted it under the new name, and I'll salt any other re-creations of the same information if you bring it to my attention, assuming of course that the next version doesn't represent WP:COI, and that seems highly unlikely. Thanks for your work. - Dank (push to talk) 20:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted article

Hi you deleted an subpage of mine and i understand where you are coming from with the reason why it was deleted but i was useing that subpage to teach myself the create a good article it was not to promote anything. I'm a new editor to Wikipedia and I'm trying to learn how to do things. I's Sorry that you seem to have broking a rule but everything on that page was fake im not trying to promote anything just to simply learn how to do things here on Wikipedia. I'm fan of pro wrestling and i used that format to learn how to create and edit things. If its possible to get my subpage back it would be greatly helpful. If i do get my page back i will but some kind of maker on it stating that its not really and used only for what im using it for. If you could get back to me that would be wonderful have a nice day.--Dcheagle (talk) 04:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, one question. That page said "we don't perform real moves". Who's "we"? - Dank (push to talk) 12:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Like i said before nothing on that page was real so the "we" does not point to anybody. Although the name Steam Iron was what i called my self when i did do backyard wrestling other then that the others were fake names and don't point to anybody. Like i said before i was using that page to learn how to create and edit Wikipedia. And i understand where you are coming from with the reason to delete it but it was never to promote anything or anybody only to learn how to do things here on wikipedia and I understand if you dont allow me to have that page back. There was at one point a Disclaimer that stated that it was all fake and that i was using it to learn how to edit pages. But as some point i removed that Disclaimer and for some reason i had not put it back when you came across the page. It was never my intent to brake the rules and I'm Sorry i did And I hope we can work this out.--Dcheagle (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand, I'll restore it. - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and please feel free if there any problem to let me know so i can fix it.--Dcheagle (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Where's Puffy!!!! Sob!

I'm still learning about the RFA process and I'm trying to spend more time involved with the community. I do feel that you raise some good points with your proposals. I must say that I unfortunately stumbled across a recent RFA dispute in which Peter was involved and that's what got me intersest in what in the world was going on at RFA. On a personal note it seems a little sad that RFA has become, to me, a tit for tat battleground for policy/editor conflicts. Oh, don't feed puffy too much he gets lethargic. Shinerunner (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think people see the old-timers occasionally being nasty in RFAs and at WT:RFA, and draw the conclusion that if they speak up, we're going to jump on them. We're actually pretty tame. Feel free to say what you'd like to see; long threads like that work better when everyone has their say. - Dank (push to talk) 22:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for encouragement, I've been tempeted to add my $.02 before but I wasn't sure of its current market value. Shinerunner (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Bradford Van

Is Bradford Van an acceptable article or not? I'm almost thinking of marking it as spam but I'm not sure, really. -WarthogDemon 02:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I deleted per db-spam. SPA, and the username suggests it's the wife of one of the principals. - Dank (push to talk) 02:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dank/Archive_8&oldid=1142955757"