User talk:James084/Archive 3

David Rosenthal

David Rosenthal ain't "my article," James. I started it as a redirect to David H. Rosenthal, then other users converted it to a page about David I. Rosenthal. They're the ones who need to be informed. Thanks. I will check that everyone's linked to the right Rosenthal, though. John FitzGerald 15:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that that the user who changed the article is Dirosent the article also seems to be self-promotion. The subject of the article is a medical student who makes movies. The movie promoted in the article collects 2 (two) Google hits other than Wikipedia. John FitzGerald 15:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, John. I should mention that when I am doing my preliminary scan on these articles I really don't read them that closely or get too deep in them. I pretty much open the article, open the history and send a standard message. I will take a closer look at this article, however, based on your comments. James084 16:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it again. I'll check out David I. Rosenthal again just to make sure I didn't underestimate his importance, though. John FitzGerald 03:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashot

Ok, will fix it

Request/Question - Ashot II

Hello. I had noticed that you had cleared some of my reported copyvios so I am hoping you can assist me with a question.

I had marked the article, Ashot II as a copyvio on February 24 and notified the submitter. Today, the submitter messaged me back that they would fix it and, in fact, they did write a new stub for this article.

I assume that since the copyvio was fixed it is acceptable for the submitter to clear the copyvio tag out and rewrite the article. (???) My confusion is that this is contrary to the instructions on the copyvio tag.

Thanks!

James084 21:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is that copyvio text should also be removed from page history, so I have deleted the two oldest versions of the article. The result is equivalent to what would have happened if the submitter had followed the instructions and written the new version on the temporary subpage, in which case I would have deleted the original and moved the new version into place. I hope that answers your question :). Thue | talk 22:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool! Thanks for your help!! James084 22:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CIP

James, thanks for the help. When I get some more time I plan on finishing this page. I will add sub categories for each of the phases of the protection plan. FrankWilliams 03:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

Seems TrevorMay was busy, besides hitting your user page. I identified his vandalism on the AfD debate, though I notice you just reverted it. He also decided to target some other Canadian websites for AfD. I guess he thinks if his site doesn't rate an article, the others shouldn't either. <<sigh>> Fan1967 22:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deathmaker

Hey there. You forgot to check the page history when you prodded Deathmaker. Turns out it had already been prodded and deprodded (without explanation). So I've moved it to AfD. Just thought I'd let you know so you could have your say if you wanted. NickelShoe 23:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beurre mixer

Just wanted to let you know that I think you did the right thing with the AfD for "beurre mixer." It turns out that it wasn't even spelled correctly. (See immersion blender). Crypticfirefly 06:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Chioli

Oh. I hadn't noticed; I was just combing through te dead-end pages, where it was listed. Thanks for your diligence. :) Dmcdevit·t 19:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect article

You managed to write a perfect article; see [1]. However, I have now spoiled it. Sorry. Gdr 11:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Dan Stokols

James, you inserted a NPOV template on the page I contributed (Daniel Stokols). I have since inserted several edits in an effort to ensure NPOV. If you still feel the NPOV template should remain, let me know. I would rather have the page deleted altogether than for it to remain with a permanent NPOV template, since the template suggests that the information provided is biased or unverifiable, etc. I believe that the information on that page is, in fact, accurate, verifiable, and not biased. If you think the revised page is still biased, please let me know. My intent in creating the page was to contribute to the Environmental Psychology article page, in the section that lists contributors to that field. Since I am a relative newcomer to Wiki, what is the etiquette for having the NPOV template removed? Is that something you have to do, since you posted the template originally? Can I remove it until someone decides to dispute the removal? Please leave you reply on the talk page of the DS article- thanks.

thanks

James, thanks for your reply to my earlier question which I received on my user talk page. Dan Stokols

tardiness is better than apathy

James, sorry I didn't weigh in on the collecting tubule -- I would've voted to keep it -- but I've been off passing some exams. Glad to see it worked in your favour though. Mattopaedia 04:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CIP (Again)

James, finally finished the article and uploaded it. Please review. Thanks for your help.FrankWilliams 20:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]