Jump to content

User talk:Dank/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Archive of User talk:Dank/Mar

Prince Thingy

Sorry not to get back to you sooner - went to bed. Pure rubbish. No King of Champagne (ever!), Kingdom of Two Sicilies had ceased (merged into Italy) and so on. I enjoy a good hoax (and have sent compliments on occasion) but this wasn't one. Just a badly written mishmash. Peridon (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching it. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your RfA

Hey Dan - thanks for your your message regarding my failed RfA. I appreciate the time you took throughout the RfA to weigh up the case and felt honoured at your eventual move to support. I too think CSD criteria could use some work - namely because of the difference between the stated criteria and what is done in practice. For now, I'll be focusing acutely on CSD over the next couple of months and earn the trust of my opposers. Thanks again for the thoughtful participation and feedback. FlyingToaster 22:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry my support came too late to do any good. I'd enjoy learning CSD along with you, so any time you want to give me a holler that you're busy with tagging, I'll get busy with deleting. Looking forward to your next RFA. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Userify project page

Hi Dan, could you use your special powers to userify Wikipedia:Casual? The essay is what remains of a (poor) attempt by Pickbothmanlol (talk · contribs) to create a new Wikipedia guideline through sockpuppetry. I nominated it for deletion but it was found not offensive enough to delete outright. Thanks. Wronkiew (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

NaCl

I have generally kept to a straight "if it's recreated after deletion more than once, salt it" policy. The only exception would be one that's been recreated after a full-blown AfD; those get salted after the first recreation. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That works for me. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Martial arts spammer

The articles are basically identical, so I salted it under both variants of the name. The editor in question has never done anything except: add his school of martial arts to list of martial arts; create spam articles about it; and advertise it and himself, complete with contact info and spamlinks, on his userpage. I have blocked him indefintely as an advertising-only account. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much; I'm learning. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Urban Initiatives

Re: your comments on my talk Looks like it got deleted already Huadpe (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Okay, I'll leave a nice note on the creator's talk page, then. Thanks for letting me know. That one was a judgment call; it fit the "profile" of spam, so no harm done with the speedy. I would have preferred to give them a little time to get their act together. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Chris Archer

Well, at the least, the article needs to be rewritten. --Jnelson09 (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay ... since this is your ballgame, nudge the creator and see if you can get them to find reliable sources. If they don't and you can't find them, then AfD it, or I'll be happy to. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

OVarian Cancer

Whoops realized after I deleted that you'd declined G11, but it was a copyvio. I'll restore and take to AfD if you want. Let me know StarM 03:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know about the copyvio; I agree with your decision to speedy. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page, Dan. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 04:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

xMAS

This edit did not work. Taken to AfD. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure why no one wants to touch that one; I know I don't because I've never had a clue about notability of software or software companies. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 10:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sales 2.0 article deletion

I am writing about your recent deletion of the 'Sales 2.0' article. The article was created to give a clear, non-promotional explanation of the evolving field of sales technology and practices. The articles referenced were all legitimate 3rd party articles that did not promote any company or person. The definition as I last saw it did not contain any promotional or advertising content, so I am confused by your reasons for deletion. Also, not sure what you are referring to in your explanation "Sales 2.0 is a registered trademark of Sales 2.0 LLC" as this was not anywhere in the entry the last time I looked at it. This entry is similar to Web 2.0, in that the term describes the evolution of an industry and technological framework and thus belongs in Wikipedia. Please restore the article. ChrisLsquad (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That article was deleted because it was promotional, and the "registered trademark" quote above was definitely in the article just before it was deleted. There were a couple of sources in the article, but that doesn't mean the subject is notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. I can't speak for Dan, but probably deletion review is your best next step.  Frank  |  talk  23:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Frank's got a lot of experience with deletion, and I agree. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. It appears that the article was edited to include the content you mentioned about Sales 2.0 being a "registered trademark" and perhaps other additional language that caused the entry to be promotional in nature. I did not have a chance to see the updated language, but it sounds like it was out of place. The original Sales 2.0 entry was substantive though and definitely a worthy entry for Wiki (the term is used very regularly throughout media, business, analyst and consumer circles). I really do not think that this should warrant a deletion review, but instead be reinstated and have the promotional content removed. ChrisLsquad (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no downside to getting a wider view of the issues, as long as knowledgeable people are willing to volunteer their time, and they are. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hey Dank,

You're right, there is a bunch of pages put up about Indian institutions that need speedy deletion. Usually, I tag it if its advertising, spam or fancruft. Otherwise, I use a Google search to check notability. Prasad Bidapa is definitely notable, imo, but the article was pure spam. I'm glad you brought up the older version - I think it can be salvaged. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I don't live in India and so don't have the knowhow to understand the importance of obscure pseudo-borderline notable things. Only the flagrant nonsense. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys; I got an offer of help at WT:INDIA, too. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI

No action is necessary, but thought you'd want to know about this thread.  Frank  |  talk  02:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

re Wuhwuzdat and speedies

Just a quick comment on your comment at User talk:Wuhwuzdat. I guess we have different standards about what's good tagging -- 10% bad tagging isn't great in my book, especially when you consider that each bad tag has the potential to drive off a future good contributor to Wikipedia. Even with the request to not leave messages about bad speedies, a quick glance shows that s/he had half a dozen comments on them yesterday alone. Making the text bigger with edit summaries like this isn't solving the problem. Just my two cents, make of it what you will. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of R&Q

Hi! R&Q is an icq client very popular between russian speaking people and it can be proved by russian google and yandex: http://yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=R%26Q http://www.google.ru/search?hl=ru&q=r%26q&btnG=%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA+%D0%B2+Google&lr=&aq=0&oq=R%26

We also have an article in ru-wikipedia: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%26Q

The R&Q's popularity is encreasing lately between english speaking people too and we decided to create an article in en-wiki. Yes, partly it can be refered to as an advertisment, but first of all we wanted to bring more information to english speaking people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by v2k3 (talk • contribs)

I don't speak Russian, but I took that search and restricted it to английском, which did give me English results. Nothing in the first 5 pages of English results was a reference to your software in what we would consider a reliable source. There were also no English references in the article I deleted. Can you find any English language reliable source that talks about your software? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Look in the forum of the &RQ author. R&Q is based on &RQ sources, but also R&Q violates GPL of that sources

Sig

Thank you, i will use your suggestion if i can figure out the html for it. Would you happen to know? Sarah Katherine 23:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. At My preferences/User profile, check the "raw signature" box, and enter for instance (copypaste this from the edit screen, if you'd like to also give a link to your contribs): Sarah Katherine Sko1221. Or, what would work just as well for the RFA crowd, User:Sarah Katherine isn't taken, so you could ask over at WP:CHU to change your username, or maybe you could take that name as a redirect to your current username. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that helps. [[Sarah Katherine visit 23:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Sarah Katherine Sko1221 23:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep. Now when people say something about Sko1221, people won't think "Don't know her". - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

ARTESYS

Hi, Dan. I'm writing about your recent deletion of the 'ARTESYS' article. I understand that wiki is not a promotion space, OK. But why you delete only ARTESYS and not other companies in the same section ("Document Management System"). Some of theirs have the same size as ARTESYS, less references than ARTESYS, some are more recent as ARTESYS. If it is a question of syntax, I write the ARTESYS article by copying-pasting company articles already in this section (like "Questys Solutions", "Version One"...). Thanks for your explainations. 213.41.240.152 (talk · contribs)

I'm sorry, I've searched my edits, your edits, and deleted files, and I find nothing under ARTESYS or Artesys. Perhaps you misspelled it? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Short for "Request for Arrows". :) Thank you for your support. This has been a hard but useful experience (useful experiences often are hard) and whether I ever accept a nomination again or not, I'm willing to address the cautions of the sincere Opposers and try to do better. Lots of arrows coming at me, and I get the point. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought you did very well in a tough RfA, and I suspect you'll do a lot better next time around. Let me know if I can help. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I've gotten more encouragement than I knew was out there, and that's heartening. Maybe I've become like an old shoe around here. Or rabbit's foot, minus the luck part. I'll be re-doing my user page a little bit, and otherwise if you see me do something extremely stupid, feel free to let me know. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure, if you'll do the same! - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Always glad to be of service. :) It can be a great rush to see someone else do something dumb for a change. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Barack Obama subpage

You deleted a subpage article that is currently being discussed, citing your own POV assessment of what that article contains, characterizing such in a particularly POV way, and not having participated or given regard to discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama/Criticism of Barack Obama. Restore it now. Thanks. -Stevertigo 20:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page, the proper forum to review whether the deletion was appropriate is deletion review. Feel free to take the page there, and please let me know so I can watchlist the discussion. I'm always ready to learn if I've done something wrong. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk)
You appear to have certain opinions about the value of that particular subpage draft. You might also have similar opinions about the creation of such subpages, the usage of templates transclusion to aid article development, and the motivations of the creator. All of them are certainly valid opinions, in the context of discussion. To simply delete something outright requires more than rationale; it requires that such rational be accurate and have the support of other editors. We are discussing that issue now, and your deletion only serves to destroy and stigmatize that strange process of discussion first, delete after. You made some charachterizations on the Talk:Obama page, not rationales. Restore it, and join the discussion. -Stevertigo 20:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
As I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama/Criticism of Barack Obama: To quote WP:BLP: "Summary [speedy] deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is disparaging and written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be repaired or replaced to an acceptable standard." To quote WP:Attack page: "An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that exists primarily to disparage its subject. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to being deleted by any administrator at any time." I have speedily deleted this page, and since it's already been speedily deleted under this and another name 6 times now, I have salted it (protected against recreation) for 1 month. I don't make the rules, I just enforce them. This is perhaps the one policy that the Wikimedia Foundation feels the most strongly about, since Wikipedia is subject to the same laws on defamation that everyone else in the U.S. is. As always, I could be wrong, and if so, the place to contest this is deletion review. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
That's the policy; now a personal note. I know that it's easy to feel "slapped down" when someone comes along and deletes an article you've put some work into. I didn't delete the article because there's anything wrong with your work, and Wikipedia does sometimes divide up biographical articles among separate pages, and some of the pages will slant in one direction while other pages slant in another direction. Keeping everything balanced is hard work, and I wish you the best of luck with making the points you'd like to make. But our policy is to delete pages which exist to disparage their subjects immediately; you can then continue your discussion in the obvious place, the talk page of Barack Obama, and if you can gain consensus to divide up the information among separate pages in the way you like, then you can proceed. Happy editing. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Hello Dank55. As an admin, can you userfy the last version of the article for me so I can continue to work on it, or point me to an editor who can? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, userfication is suggested by our policy for certain types of deleted pages, but not when a page is deleted because it's created to disparage its subject. I'm guessing the reason for that is that userpages are indexed, which means the potentially defamatory material would immediately wind up on search engines and mirrors. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    Pages can be explicitly {{NOINDEX}}'d, but I still don't think userification is appropriate here. Protonk (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of BLP

I see that your policy is to immediately delete pages which exist only to disparage their subject. This is great news. Please delete "criticism of George W. Bush". Ejnogarb (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That page was created after consensus on the article's talk page to split the issues up among separate pages. Criticism of Barack Obama was created without any prior consensus, for the purpose of disparaging the article's subject (and at least two other people). See the policy quoted above; such pages are subject to instant deletion. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It's hypocrisy, and your bias is ruining Wikipedia. There is enough criticism of Barack Obama which has been documented by varied, notable sources to produce such a page. Ejnogarb (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The place to argue for retention of the page is at the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 15. If I'm being hypocritical, they'll catch it. You're welcome to weigh in. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Lisebug/Sandbox

I'm sorry, I couldn't find any copyright violation on the indicated page. Another page, perhaps? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that page... if you copy any portion of text from that page into Google, it already appears on this page and others. For examples, see this, this and this. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
PS:- shall I restore the speedy-tag, or will you deal with it yourself? Thanks :-) ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Julian just deleted as spam. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Florcello

Could you please explain how my article on Florcello submitted 03/16/09 is considered "blatent advertising"? How could it possibly be written in a more unbiased fashion ? I want to learn. Please take a look a the articles for Tuaca, Liquor Fogg, Sabra... If these articles are acceptable, please advise how I am offending the Wiki rules.--MBH2000 (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Giving the link here for admins who might want to look: Florcello. The first reason I gave was actually what we call WP:CSD A7 or "db-notability". We don't have articles about 99.999% of existing products; there has to be some significant record in journals, books, newspapers etc. that indicate that a variety of people believe the product is a fixture in our culture, something worth talking and writing about; this is a concept we call WP:Notability on Wikipedia. Generally, a product has to be widely deployed before it even has a shot at notability. I did a Google search, there weren't a lot of hits, and none of the hits suggested that someone was mentioning your product in something we consider a reliable source in a way that would establish notability. One admin had deleted your article as "spam" and another person had tagged it as "spam", and I believe they meant more or less the same thing. I personally don't care for the text "blatant advertising", because I don't think that's applicable even in most cases where we use that tag, but wiser people than me have decided that that's the tone they prefer. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Wallyboard

Hey, I noticed that you deleted Wallyboard under A7. I was under the impression that A7 couldn't be used for a product. I therefore tagged it G11. Is my understanding incorrect? decltype (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely right. I couldn't sleep last night, so I was doing CSD work at 3 a.m. ... not going to do that again, I see I also AfD'd an article without checking for notability, too. Gah! - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification :) decltype (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Admin nomination

First, I am not this person, nor has this person contacted me about this matter.

I don't know if this is proper protocol for these things, so if this is out of line, I apologize in advance.

I am coming to you with this as, among the more active admins here (and your dealings with me in the past), you have shown sound judgment, courtesy, and fairness, along with what I perceive to be an inclusionist attitude. I know that under the guidelines, anyone can nominate someone for adminship, but the truth is it really needs to come from a respected admin.

I have looked into the history of a particular user, John Z, and have found someone who seems like an excellent candidate for an admin. Specifically:

  • Nice percentage of article edits to everything else (as evidenced by his contributions summary)
  • A person who people come to for help (as evidenced by his talk page
  • A consensus builder (works in various groups)
  • Ability to work in controversial topics without pi$$ing people off
  • Seemingly respected by his peers (talk page)
  • Apparently, no personal attacks or edit wars. The most hostile message I found on his talk page had a reply that at it's worst could be classified as terse.
  • Perceived participation in AfD discussions.

I am not providing sources for these claims, as I feel that should you decide to look into this it should be with fresh eyes, and some of these are more along the lines of my perception and "name recognition" from various aspects of wikipedia.

Should you not have the time to investigate, nor find this person to be a good candidate, I will understand. My only personal stake in this is I feel John Z is a thoughtful inclusionist editor, and I believe there need to be more. I will check back here should you respond.

Thank you,

Mike 74.69.39.11 (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle

Hey, thanks for the heads-up. I've actually been using Twinkle for a while, but didn't realise it had a CSD tagging tool until now. Thanks again. GeneralAtrocity (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You bet. There's actually a temporary bug; Twinkle used to marked pages as "patrolled" automatically, but that got "unfixed" somehow in a recent upgrade of the Wikimedia software (and the Twinkle folks can't do anything about that). But when it's working correctly, Twinkle will mark the article as patrolled, and also alert the creator of the article with an appropriate message about speedy deletion, and also do the edit summary, and also do the tagging correctly. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:Stevertigo's disruptive trolling and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,

Re: In other news

Thanks very much for the kind feedback, Dan. I've been working pretty hard towards good CSD work, especially in light of my past RfA & looking towards a hopefully less dramatic future one.  :) Happy editing to you. FlyingToaster 08:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And to you! - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

blanking

We do not blank during afd except if it justifies a speedy delete. The stuff will get out of the honest mirrors well enough after the article is removed 5 days later, and for the dishonest ones, any appearance at all will get it on for good. DGG (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Macroview

I recently had a page deleted macroview. Could you please give me some feedback on how I could get this page back on. It was deleted due to advertising and I can respect that but why then is the citect page still up. I based the page on this one to try to ensure it was ok. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moejoe199 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is: let me see if I can find someone in computing who can help you. The longer answer is: there aren't a lot of articles on software in Wikipedia, because we require notabiliy, meaning at least several and usually a lot of newspapers, books, magazines, etc, have considered the software important enough to review or at least mention favorably. Are there any publications (other than industry publications, most of which print anything they're given to print) that have mentioned your software? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
You're in luck, someone at our Computing wikiproject is familiar with your software. Click on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing#Anyone who's interested; he's asking the same question, are you aware of any reliable sources that talk about your products. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
You might also try checking with Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems. I think that might actually be the WikiProject that would be the parent for these type of articles, but there would be a little overlap with Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing. Tothwolf (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see that they've answered any questions since October; it was never a big wikiproject. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing is probably about the same in that its not very active now...I just happened to have it's talk page on my watchlist. WikiProject Systems does have assessment banners on a number of related articles in this field so I'd think they would be the right place, but finding active editors might still be a challenge. Tothwolf (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I've located some online pages that refer to our acquisition of Macroview and am waiting for my boss to get back to me regarding any newspaper articles. [[2]] [[3]]. Thanks for your feedback guys. Chris
I've rehashed a macroview page with references to sites that mention macroview and removed information on sentient. Where can I put the page for review? Thanks. Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moejoe199 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't generally review software articles; you might try posting your notice at WT:COMPUTING, and perhaps User talk:Tothwolf has more advice. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

[ExteNet]

I recently had a page, ExteNet Systems deleted by you. The reason was that it was 'deliberate advertising' I believe. I am doing this as a student project for a company of choice, and I am trying to make it completely neutral and informative to provide information on the wireless provider industry.

Can you please give me advise so I can ensure it does not get deleted again? Thanks a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rialtoguy (talk • contribs) 15:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. See WP:SPAM and WP:CORP for what we need in order to have an article about a business or product. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 18:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
For your excellent ability to balance content work and administrative duties in a spectacular and constructive manner. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Very kind, and good timing, too, I've been having problems with acid reflux (now fixed by Prilosec, apparently) and I needed a boost. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Response

I have responded to your e-mail on my talk page at User talk:Chillum#From e-mail regarding RfA. Sorry about the delay. Chillum 23:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Crat list

Sorry, my error for accepting you. I mistook you for another Dan. I will be more careful henceforth. Apologies for any embarrassment caused. --Dweller (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My mistake as well! Special:EmailUser/Bureaucrats was what I was looking for. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Time magazine's "All-TIME" 100 best albums

I'm sorry, I couldn't find the copyvio at that page, where was it? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is my first tagging of a potential copyvio, so I've probably made a mistake, but at the very bottom of the page it says "Copyright © 2009 Time Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited"...GiantSnowman 02:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to speedy tagging! Did you find any sentences in the Wikipedia article that were lifted word-for-word from that page? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
There's no direct quoting, everything is paraphrased...but a similar list of All-TIME 100 Greatest Novels has been previously deleted for copyvio. GiantSnowman 02:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a tag called {{close paraphrase}} you can use when it's a close paraphrase, and I think it's likely this article won't survive ... but we can't speedily delete under G12 unless more or less the entire thing was copied word for word and there's no earlier version in the history that was not a copyvio. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help - I've added {{close paraphrase}} to the article; do you think I should PROD the article? GiantSnowman 02:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think PROD is a good call. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've prodded the article as potential copyvio due to its paraphrasing. Thanks for all your help, GiantSnowman 02:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Any time. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC regarding WP:TERRORIST

Hi: You're probably watching the WT:WTA talk page, but if not, I wanted to let you know I've set up an RFC to get some outside discussion there, and to encourage slightly more formal statements than our more freewheeling discussion thus far. RayTalk 18:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

30 minute test block

Hello, Dank55. I know this may sound a bit ridiculous, but could you please block my account with an expiry time of 30 minutes as a test block? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to "help" ... but #wikipedia-en-admins suggested I should ask: what's the reason? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
To see how blocks work for the blocked users perspective. It's no big deal. I'll change my mind and say a 10 minute test instead. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The advice I'm getting is that it's probably not a good idea to block your main account; people do look at your block log from time to time, and they don't necessary check how long you were blocked for. Do you have a sock account of some kind? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
No, and I won't make one. If you don't want to test block this account, then I'll just forget about the test. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'd rather not. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

sources

glad to have my source recognised. DGG (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Curse the South, but we know our Bibble. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Schools at CSD

Hi, thank you for your good work that you are doing. We get many Asian schools that are very hard to source. When I come across them I generally merge them, either into their locality or, where available into a "List of schools in ..." page. This has the benefit of preserving the content and parking the school until sources can be found. Perhaps you might like to consider this approach? TerriersFan (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a great approach, but I'm wondering if we could have the best of both worlds if we AfD it first and then merge the material if the article is deleted? Someone might come up with sufficient sources, especially if we're giving them a couple of 5-day deadlines. AfD does run the risk that people will say we're undermining them if we merge when they said not to merge, but is there a contingent of hardliners we need to worry about? I haven't seen them. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that if a page is deleted then it can't subsequently be merged for GFDL reasons; an AFD is really an 'all or nothing' approach. My experience is that merging marginally notable schools rarely, if ever, gets challenged. TerriersFan (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Good point, and we just had a discussion about that today; I've added an anchor so you can see my response at WP:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Anonymous_Dissident#Response re: A Nobody. I'm really okay either way. If we could get clear guidance from an RFC, I'd be happy never to AfD a high school, and advise taggers likewise (unless the newly-created article is dripping with promotionalism or copyvios), but some previous attempts to get consensus on this (WP:SCH) have failed. Could we try this as an experiment? Will you keep following "list of Schools-related deletion discussions"? (I'm guessing that's what you saw.) I have generally been staying away from the vote if I'm declining a speedy, but I'll jump into the school-related ones and usually vote either Keep or Merge and Delete (probably the latter) if there are no sources; I have read the arguments on high schools before and I agree that it's highly likely that hard-copy sources supporting notability exist, but it may take a while to find them. That will be 2 votes (yours and mine) for Keep or Merge, and others, including the closers, are likely to be sympathetic, usually, so the material won't get lost, and if someone turns up sources, all the better. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Arachnoid Cyst Awareness

I preferred to speedy this one under db-web rather than db-spam, since none of the Google hits were to reliable sources, and no sources were listed or even suggested on the page. I read the conversations with the creator, and I agree that we're only talking about a couple of words that were promotional; the problem for me was complete lack of notability. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The user who created is accusing me of having something against her (or him), so I am trying to calm him (or her) down and explain why I speedied it. I'm not against having the article here in general, as long as there are reliable sources supporting its presence here. I hope I don't come off as bitey. --Whip it! Now whip it good! 01:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Complete lack of notability you say, but you don't even know what an arachnoid cyst is, let alone what the organization has done to help people. It has been around almost as long as ABTA, and because "google hits" which I am not even sure what you mean, you deleted the article? Go on, go read ABTA's, they only write a few sentences about their organization and you publish it, but Arachnoid Cyst Awareness you delete because of google hits, Just so you know the website used to be arachnoid-cyst.com but has recently been changed because of availability of a new domain name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arachnoidcystawareness (talk • contribs) 01:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Once again I was the source, I don't need to copy other people's words in order to write a paragraph. ABTA didn't have any sources, and again I am just using their page as an example, but you kept their article. Doesn't make any sense to me, and I honestly believe you moderators on here love to delete as much as possible. Finally there was an article about the one organization for Arachnoid Cysts, and you guys went and deleted it. You must be so proud. When I was in the process of editing it too, it disappeared, very nice of all of you here. Are you afraid of something new? Do you not like those with brain tumors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arachnoidcystawareness (talk • contribs) 01:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Crackthewhip: Although I personally would prefer to go a little easier ... just a little ... on people who create articles that eventually get deleted as db-spam or db-corp, the warnings and edit summaries have been decided by the community, and yes, they come off as bitey, and that's apparently intentional. Arachnoid: see WP:CORP for what we need in an article about your organization. Find independent coverage in multiple reliable sources of your organization, and then we can allow the article. Also, it's likely your username will be banned (we call it "blocked") at some point, since it promotes your organization; you may want to create a new account. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My user name was changed, I am not promoting anything, I think you guys are super paranoid, seriously. I will rewrite it however, but do you honestly think half of the articles on wiki were written by people totally unaffiliated with the subject matter? Of course not, and yet this is your big rule you have to abide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemmadidonato (talk • contribs) 01:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"And that's apparently intentional". No, I am not being intentionally bitey and I find that remark offensive. How dare you not assume good faith? You can see on the talk page that there is no intentional malice (if there even is any) towards the user. I am being patient in explaining the user why the page was deleted. Why would I want to drive away a user? What would I gain from that? --Whip it! Now whip it good! 01:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Um...huh? Did I say you were bitey? Oh...I see what you're saying. I meant, edit summaries like "blatant advertising" and some of the content in the warnings, when not accompanied by explanation, clearly come off as "bitey" ... I don't think we should sugar-coat the fact that calling something "blatant" is a clear case of not assuming good faith. But the extra time that you put into talking with these guys shows that you weren't being bitey yourself. There's a discussion going on at the moment on a lot of CSD issues, and I'm going to push for milder edit summaries. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I didn't understand what context you were speaking in. I apologize I came off rude. --Whip it! Now whip it good! 02:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem at all, I understand what you were saying now. Keep up the good work, and I will try to get "blatant" and similar bitey words taken out of the default edit summaries. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is slightly comical how no one will answer my question about this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Brain_Tumor_Association , please look at it and tell me how it differs from the one I wrote, and please tell me where the sources are listed, oh can you also tell me why it is still on wiki if it is promoting ABTA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemmadidonato (talk • contribs) 02:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Google search on "American_Brain_Tumor_Association" gives immediate references from healthfinder.gov, harvard.edu, unc.edu, etc. Which reliable sources have been writing about your organization? Do you have links? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah see now you are changing your story, ABTA never included any sources in their article, but now you are saying that is OK as long as you can google some? Maybe ACA's links don't show up on google, I know for a fact Arachnoid Cyst Friends has written a lot about ACA, but they are a private website which would never get picked up by google. Also Arachnoid Activist has written about ACA, but they also require membership in order to get onto the board, so that would prevent google from getting the links. But blogs such as Article Heaven and The Ida Express have mentioned Arachnoid Cyst Awareness and how it is the only organization out there for Arachnoid cyst patients. You can see a link to ACA on the Brain and Spine Foundation here: http://www.brainandspine.org.uk/helpline/a_to_z_of_useful_websites/index.html#arachnoid_cyst The whole point it letting the world know more about this wonderful organization is so more arachnoid cyst patients know they are not alone in their fight against one of the rarest brain tumors out there. I know maybe personally for you you may never understand, but seriously no one is out to harm wiki, I just felt it appropriate that ACA had an article just like any other NOTABLE organization out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemmadidonato (talk • contribs) 02:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The link to Brain and Spine isn't sufficient to establish what we call notability; a single link in a long list doesn't establish that people are writing about your organization. Most blogs are not considered reliable sources for most purposes. Sorry. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but I just google "arachnoid cyst awareness" and there were many links showing from Arachnoid Activist. If you want to be picky, then fine, be picky about what you think is a proper website and what isn't, the point is most people with arachnoid cysts know of ACA and talk about, but how many people have arachoid cysts compared to everyone out there with a "brain tumor". ABTA has more links because it is about a generalized BROAD subject--ALL BRAIN TUMORS. If you narrow it down to 1 rare type, arachnoid cysts, of course Harvard won't be writing a link to ACA. If you only knew anything about ACs, you would understand. IT IS AN ORPHAN DISORDER. How many times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemmadidonato (talk • contribs) 02:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The point ... and this offends a lot of people, you aren't the only one ... is that a decision was made early on that Wikipedia was going to attempt only to report on what the world says, not try to make the world a better place. If Harvard and UNC and NIH and anywhere else that qualifies as a reliable source isn't writing about your organization, then write them and tell them about your organization. When they write about you, then we can too. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL, You think we haven't? Arachnoid Cysts don't even register on some people's radars. For what it is worth take a look at ACA and read about how people are suffering and doctors, neurologists, neurosurgeons because they never heard of this type of tumor, don't care. Maybe orphan disorder isn't a good enough term, rarest of the rare would be more fitting. Maybe Wikipedia should try to make the world more aware of these orphan disorders at the same time remaining encyclopedic. What is the harm in adding new diseases? And for what it is worth, your arachnoid cyst article was written by some girl Catherine years ago, most of the text in there isn't even true. But wiki printed it anyway, how is that encyclopedic and what the world says? You let some random person write opinion and not fact, at least I was trying to rectify that in some small way.--Gemmadidonato (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Gemmadidonato, I left you a message on your talk page explaining to you that your argument of "This article exists, so why can't mine" will not fly. And calling other editors "looney toon" and "crazed" is considered both uncivil and a personal attack. --Whip it! Now whip it good! 03:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
There are many thousands of support groups for diseases, but Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it a tool for 'raising awareness' of diseases or support groups. Until there is significant coverage of your organization in reliable sources, we cannot include it here as it does not satisfy our notability guidelines. The disorder, however, is of course an encyclopedic topic, and I encourage you to work on Arachnoid cyst if you can improve the article with verifiable content cited to reliable sources. I would be happy to help, although I may not have access to many sources. Maralia (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Head → Desk

I just wanted to let you know that this was in no way intentional. Good job catching it :) — Jake Wartenberg 23:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

On WP:BN, the "report" button to the right of the candidates tells whether anyone has double-counted ... they need that because people do it by accident so often, so you're in good company. Happy voting. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look...

...at this MfD. Also check my deletion log; the page was deleted three times under three different names. I am soliciting the opinion of others as well. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  15:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Case closed.  Frank  |  talk  16:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw the messages ... very nice work. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: UAA

It's perfectly acceptable to block the account yourself, especially if it's a blatant violation of WP:SPAMNAME. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case ... fear my mop of death. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dank/Archive_5&oldid=1140247554"