User talk:Dekkanar

DYK

On July 5, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article West Liberty Foods, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Welcome, great article

Wow, welcome to Wikipedia. Your West Liberty Foods article is just amazing, even without considering that you're a new editor. I've nominated it for "Wikipedia:Good article" status, which would put it one step away from our "Wikipedia:Featured article" status. Great stuff. -- Zanimum 17:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Business Studies & Research

Hi Dekkanar, thanks for taking the time to cleanup this article. I made a few minor typographical corrections, but otherwise it seems fine to me. Thanks again. Regards, Accurizer 13:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem to keep te vandalism out of this one - pleasure to help ~ - Peripitus (Talk) 21:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Help in march 2007

Glad to help again - looking at the edits I think that there is only 1 editor who's created 3 accounts and been using the article as a sandbox. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaty DYK

On 11 July, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article American Meat Institute, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Mgm|^(talk) 21:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Box

is here.

re: Vandalism

You said: Alphachimp,

Recently, some likely vandalism occured on the mainspace and talk pages for the article New Trier High School. I would appreciate it if you could take the time to revert the edits made by unknown user 69.218.177.35. Thank you very much for your help.--Dekkanar 14:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Trier_High_School&diff=64120960&oldid=64115704 reverted] the changes. You too can revert vandalism (same as me, seriously). Check here. Alphachimp ^talk 14:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhhhhhh! What happened to your arm? Glad I could help you, by the way. Alphachimp ^talk 15:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Putnam

I have added many, many references to this article. Could you please take a look at it again and strike out your original objection. It no longer applies (: Thank you.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 18:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Liberty Foods

Hey. Thank you for your compliments. Those two games are also two of my very favorites (top three, if not the top two themselves), so I was eager to see their articles be of quality. I imagine you'd have expected to see the title that had one less "I" in its name be the one that got lots of attention in a particular RPG series, eh? XD Deckiller and I aren't really big fans of that one, though, and it would be far too annoying to try to make that thing be stable anyway.

As for your request, I'll take a look at it and see what I can think of. I might not have time to do it tonight, but I'll do it within the next 24 hours. I've not worked on articles about companies very much, to be honest. I'm much more familiar with what's normally expected of articles on fictional works. However, I'll try to provide any helpful advice I can.

Offhand, though, just taking a quick look at it, the article seems informative, thorough, and extremely well referenced. You've got at least one reference for every kb of article size, and several of those references get used multiple times, so I doubt we'll have anything to worry about there (though I would suggest adding the code that will make your references small like those on the Shadow page). I'll try to have you more detailed input tomorrow. At a glance, though, it looks nice. I actually want to read it, so you must have done a good job. Ryu Kaze 01:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I performed a light copyedit, but the prose may still need a bit of work. Users like Tony1 look for removal of redundancies and whatnot for crisp wording, so I tried to help out a bit with that. It still needs a bit more work before it goes to FA, unless you want to deal with the prose during the nomination and get more feedback that way. — Deckill e r 02:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Deckiller's edits have helped improve the prose rather significantly, but there's still quite a few redundancies and places where the Manual of Style should be implemented. I'm going to perform some light copyediting as I go over the page, and then I'll let you know anything else I think should maybe be focused on. Ryu Kaze 12:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've made several changes to clean up the prose and reduce redundancies, as well as various MOS changes and rearrangement of links, but one thing I'm noticing that should probably be touched on is that some of the references don't utilize a citation template. Typically, all of your references should follow a standard format. I fixed one or two, but there's quite a few more that need some attention. Still looking over everything. Ryu Kaze 12:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've finished my copyedit of the lead and the first subsequent section. It is my belief that -- since you obviously wanted advice so that you could finish construction of the article yourself -- that advice should be limited to such a demonstration. That being the case, I'll give you all my notes on the article, and hopefully you can use them while continuing to polish up the page. I've tried to implement several of these suggestions into my copyedits so that they can serve as a roadmap for how you proceed from here. If you would like additional advice after you've implemented these ideas, feel free to ask me to take another look. I'll be glad to.

Here's my notes:

Watch out for redundancies. The lead introduced us to the company, and then most of the first paragraph in the "Information" section reiterated all we had been told. While people often will not read every section in an article, and the lead is supposed to act as a summary of sorts for the information present, the basic assumption to make when writing an article is that someone will read the lead and then a section. So if you're working on each section with the idea in mind that someone might not read the entire article, imagine that they read the lead and then they'll read the section you're currently working on. They'll only need introduction info once
Explain operations better to the uninitiated. Problem sentence: "The West Liberty plant participates in the entire process by slaughtering, processing, and producing finished product, while the Sigourney plant focuses on the processing step only, and the Mount Pleasant plant only produces finished product." Now, you're not necessarily going to explain what all these terms mean or add parenthetical notations (that would be considered messy), but what you can do is use a replacement term that more readily identifies what you're trying to explain. Even though these words are the "proper" words to use in discussion of the subject matter, that could be a little confusing to someone with no familiarity with meat processing. So, if using "packing" could be substituted at one point, use that instead. To many people, "processing" and "producing" might sound synonomous, even though they're not in this context
Typically, you'll want to use as few words as possible so that sentences are crisp, while also trying to prevent any unnecessary pauses or full stops, so that things flow. Example: I changed "While West Liberty Foods has grown and received awards since its creation, it initially faced a difficult market for turkeys. It has since experienced an episode of labor discontent among some employees" to "While West Liberty Foods has grown and received awards since its creation, it initially faced a difficult market for turkeys, and has since experienced an episode of labor discontent". "Labor discontent" is, by context, associated with employees, so it isn't necessary to identify them in this sentence, and the pause at the end of the other sentence isn't necessary since both sentences are about issues the company has dealt with, and both can be mentioned in a single sentence without it being too long-winded. It's a difficult balance to find sometimes, but that's really what you want to shoot for: no unnecessary pauses, but no mouthfuls either
This kind of overlaps with the previous suggestion, but pay close attention to how you use commas and the word "and". Sometimes it might appear that things are being linked to things you might not intend for them to be, or it can make for run-on sentences. Example: "The R&D facility includes testing space for both raw and cooked product and can create test products from start to finish including initial formulation and final slicing and packaging". Sentences like this can be a mouthful because they lack proper pausing. You wouldn't want to use a full stop here with a period, but you do want to implement a pause to display a change in train of thought. I change the sentence to read thus: "The R&D facility includes testing space for both raw and cooked product, and can create test products from start to finish, including initial formulation, final slicing, and packaging". By the way, using the comma before the final "and" in this sentence wasn't necessary, but I did it because it seemed to be the style you prefer throughout the article. There's no correct or incorrect way of implementing a comma in those kinds of situations, but I think it would really look a little cleaner and maybe be less confusing to the reader if that final comma wasn't used. Me personally, I don't use commas in those situations most of the time so that the reader won't be expecting a pause where one might not really be needed. Typically, if you're just listing (ex: "I like dogs, pizza and lemonade") you won't need that final comma. If, however, you're using descriptions of each item after mentioning them, it's best to use the comma for clarity on the basis of description-to-subject (ex: "I like dogs, which are furry quadrupeds, pizza, which is a flat, oven-baked bread covered in cheese and tomato sauce, and lemonade, a beverage that is made from the juice of lemons")
You won't need the external link to the official site at the bottom. The company template box already has that taken care of
Watch out for the placement of links. They should occur where the terms in question are used first, except in the case of proper names. For instance, I've turned the second use of "Iowa" into a link to the article about the state, because the first use was in the title of the Iowa Turkey Growers Cooperative. I noticed a lot of links showing up when they should have been a line or two before, or much earlier in the article
Turn the "Awards" section into prose. Lists are generally looked upon unfavorably
Be sure proper capitalization is followed, even with words that are linked
In cases where you're going to use the name of something commonly abbreviated, use the full name first and then have the abbreviation follow in parentheses. For example, "polymerase chain reaction" should occur first, and then be followed by "(PMR)". Also, you don't have to link both uses. Just the first
Identify which currency you're operating with. If you use the dollar sign with regard to the US dollar, indicate that it's the US dollar by using "US$" instead of just "$". Also, in cases of currency in general, link the first use (ex: US$; I've already taken care of it in this case, though) and use the currency which applies best to the article. In this case, it's a US company so you'll obviously stick with using US currency
Standardize the formatting of your references

I hope all of this helps you out, and like I said, feel free to have me look the article over again later if you'd like. Good luck with it. Ryu Kaze 13:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The prose still needs work. As Ryu said, we're not going to do the entire article for you ^_^ — Deckill e r 15:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid additive terms like "additionally", "moreover", and "furthermore" when necessary — having more than 5 in an article may cause some objections. Also, try to avoid words like "currently" and "over the years", they don't add much to a sentence. — Deckill e r 15:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"efore people apply, they must spend their own time completing a 16 hour food safety training course through Iowa State University." You can probably live with out the "spend their own time", since if they're going through a course, they're taking the time to do it. Or, if it needs to be clarified, "Before people apply, they must complete a 16 hour food safety training course through Iowa State University." — Deckill e r 15:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The three plants combined can convert 4.5 million turkeys, raised exclusively by ITGC members, into product annually" - seems awkward; perhaps move the "annually"? — Deckill e r 15:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't take too long; the article might be a little short to get to featured status, but you never know. — Deckill e r 17:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of United States Code Congressional and Administrative News

The article United States Code Congressional and Administrative News you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:United States Code Congressional and Administrative News for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Douglike 23:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palanga Amber Museum

Hello! You failed Palanga Amber Museum as GA and listed problems, I addressed them, particularly - introduced additional sources, reworded speculated sentences. Could you please take a look now - are you concerns solved by these adjustments. If so, do I need to renominated article again? Cheers, M.K. 09:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, I made more additional improvements to the article. Cheers, M.K. 19:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement. M.K. 09:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just made a some small adjustments to the article. True work made authors who started the article ;) Cheers, M.K. 10:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Replied on my talk page - and reverted myself. --Merbabu 01:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template format {{reflist|2}} divides the entire reference section into two columns, reducing blank white spaces between the citations. I am not surprised that you don't see any difference because it appears to me some browsers don't recognize it. However, many featured articles do use the format, as you can see in Kuiper belt, Durian, or Tourette syndrome. --BorgQueen 17:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On July 17, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 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.

Good article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc.

The reason why I put it on "suspended mode" because I suspect editor Thedagomar did not read through the GA criteria before passing it. It may still be a GA, but we want to double check to make sure that it is in fact a good article. Btw, can you improve the reference section? It may look logical to people involved in laws, but Wikipedia is intended for everyone to read so it may be best to avoid short-forms. Also, try find ISBN for last reference (reference #43) OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 07:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you finish modifying references? If yes then let me know so I can go ahead and take a look again if it meets GA standards. Thank you for your time doing all the referencing modifications. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 17:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subway

Thanks for the heads up. I'll take a look and post a reply on the talk page. Skeezix1000 19:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pella

Great photos - you have a good eye. --David Shankbone 04:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Society Barnstar

		The Society Barnstar
		For your excellent article on NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc. and your hard work on disambiguation pages, I am proud to award you, Dekkanar, the Society Barnstar. Eastlaw (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bot Programming

Hello, Dekkanar. You have new messages at East718's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Campus Lake.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:DTS Crest.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DTS Crest.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]