Dennisthe2
Dr Steel AfD deletion
Apologies for deletion of the blurb... It was my attempt at compliance.
Seary6579 01:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
RE:
Please put new discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics (2nd nomination), and not an old archive. Thank you. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Good work
Kudos for dealing with the anons in the Brandford Punk Rock AFD scene. I shy away from such madness, so I'm proud of you for handling it well. YechielMan 04:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The article appears to have survivied the AfD, at least for now. I was just curious if we would have persuaded you with the information we provided after you switched your vote to neutral? Specifically I'm referring to the link to CBS's The Early Show interview with Tracy Smith. What happens now? Is the article "safe" or could this come up again at any time? I'd like to think we would have achieved consensus given one or two more days. Thanks for your help. I have to admit the process improved the article. Best, MoodyGroove 15:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- Here are the links to the media sources. If you have a dial-up connection, you may not be able to see the video:
- URL for the Video clip from CBS's The Early Show with Janet Smith (this is the one you didn't know about).
- SC-TF1 in the ETV and PBS special documentary "Care from the heart" Sept. 9, 2005 (Updated November 14, 2005). Video clips: Dial-up. Broadband. Fast-forward to 10:45. Also 22.55. MoodyGroove 15:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
Thanks
Thanks for the advice, I'll try and implement it a bit more. LazyDaisy
Barnstar
You deserve this
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
| For your comment at the Lana Lesley AFD you definitely deserve this! --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
Regis redirect
You can withdraw the nomination and when it's closed redirect the article. Otto4711 21:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I have asked User:Quarl to reopen the AFD. What I deleted was not the subject of the AFD, but a blanked redirect page. The reason for the AFD closure is, thus, based on a misunderstanding of the situation on his part. We'll see how he responds. - TexasAndroid 17:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia Community AfD
You may want to look at the current version of the article and consider revising your opinion since the current version has multiple reliable sources including a note about a notable award the community has recieved. Thanks JoshuaZ 02:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Dennis for formatting my cluttered posts. It's the first time one of the articles I've created have been AFD so I wasn't sure if I was allowed to vote. I've gone ahead and done what you suggested. --Davidkazuhiro 03:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
You previously commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important homeopaths, writing:
*I'm going with Delete here. What constitutes "important" is subjective in this case - it's kind of a fine line. Granted, I could be wrong, but at best we're looking at a merge and redirect to Homeopathy. --Dennisthe2 21:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The article has since been renamed to List of homeopaths and has also undergone other changes. I am writing to inform you of this in case you would like to revisit the discussion. Thank you, Black Falcon 06:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I replied your comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edward_Kearns. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Chink AfD
The Chink article has been greatly expanded now. Please take a look and see if you are interested in reconsidering your vote for merge. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Re : Trinity Christian HS AFD
You must be referring to the WP:ILIKEIT arguments. IMO the article is now well-attributed and its notability asserted by multiple sources, which essentially addresses the concerns of the nomination. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 18:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, seeing you have been involved in previous Afd debates on the subject I invite you to contribute to this discussion to clarify certain issues about football player notability. I think clearer guidelines are needed to avoid repeated inappropriate nominations for deletion and time consuming discussions. Cheers! StephP 20:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Vote!
Following your contribution to the discussion on football player notability you might be interested in voting on this. Rgds, StephP 10:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The Filthy Truth
Thanks for the backup. Communicating with Fnagaton feels like talking at (not with) a brick wall. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I think it's probably going to pan out to be Fnagaton thumping his chest with repeated cries of "I am a source!" along with a period of shock and surprise when the article gets deleted. Mr.Starslayer at least seems reasonable, if not conversant in basic Wikipedia policy. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 17:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- On the bright side, at least this allows us to try to pry something out of them without opening a whole new kettle of problems with notability requirements. According to the current home of The Filthy Truth, the entire thing's got 110 members. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Of course numbers don't say much, but the production staff of individual games these days can be a bigger group. I'm thinking that The Filthy Truth may be a touch less notable than MrStarslayer and Fnagaton are saying. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Me, on the other hand... Would it be unfair to use the term witchhunt to describe his reaction to most of my arguments? Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- *whistles* Now THAT is a messy, messy AFD. Then again, any time something like that is up for deletion it seems to bring the combative types out of the woodwork. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- As a side note, I'm sure I'm going to burn somewhere for finding the procedings amusing. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Me, on the other hand... Would it be unfair to use the term witchhunt to describe his reaction to most of my arguments? Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Of course numbers don't say much, but the production staff of individual games these days can be a bigger group. I'm thinking that The Filthy Truth may be a touch less notable than MrStarslayer and Fnagaton are saying. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- On the bright side, at least this allows us to try to pry something out of them without opening a whole new kettle of problems with notability requirements. According to the current home of The Filthy Truth, the entire thing's got 110 members. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the barnstar! :) --Coredesat 19:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
In your comment in this discussion, you noted that this discussion should be sent elsewhere. Now that the AfD has been closed, the question now is where to hold this discussion. I encourage you and the other editors (listed below) to find a suitable spot for this discussion and carry out the necessary steps for making a decision.
Perhaps this message does not make any sense whatsoever. In which case, please respond to this message and indicate what you want me (as the closing admin of the aforementioned AfD discussion) to do to carry out the result of the AfD. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
c.c.: User:After Midnight, User:JzG, User:Elkman User:Dennisthe2, User:Arkyan, and User:Mister.Manticore.
Septimalisation article - references added
I added major non-Christian references to Septimalisation article, please review your deletion decision here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Septimalisation Wikinger 08:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dennis, I got you message from the delete page, and I get your point. But, I'd like to discuss a bit. The rules of Wiki and of polite conversation are good rules, they let people with different opinions comunicate. I tend to be a bit bombastic, and I know I would tone it down sometimes. But, on the other hand these same rules can be exploited. They can be misinterpreted to mean that any opinion has equal weight.
I know that math, science, units of measure, relativity, can sound like foreign languages to people that don't have a background studying them and using them. This article on Septimalisation might sound as reasonable as, say, a perfectly respectable article on quantum mechanics. But I'm here to tell you, its not. These "equations" and "converstion factors" are completly meaningless. Its not just that they are wrong, they don't any meaning at all. I could talk about "the color of five" or "the mass of a joke", but these phrases, while sentences, have no meaning.
Why is this so important? Why I'm I spending so much time on this? Because these things can take on a life of there own. See postmodernism and the Sokal Hoax. People seem perfectly willing to debate fine points of "subjects" that have no meaning. Meanwhile, important subject can be neglected. Reasonable, yes, polite, yes, but lets not be suckers. Steve kap 09:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Well, if you would like me to replace the comments, I will. But his comments were disrupting the process, and they were all over the place. They should have been formatted in comment format. Again, if you would like me to replace the comments, I will. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 15:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it seems that he re-added comments similar to his comments before, so I'll just leave those in there. Thanks! Cool BlueLight my Fire! 18:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Template:pnc nominated for deletion
See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Copyright/Copywrite
Thanks for pointing that out - rather embarassing mistake for someone with two degrees in English to make, although in my denfense my specialist are predates the dictionary! Cheers A1octopus 17:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre
Please revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed. Uncle G 19:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Commentary on Afds
Can you please try and limit your comments on Afds. While closing this recent afd I noticed your numerous comments. Needless discussion makes it difficult for closing admins to read through the afd. In particular I was disturbed by you comments to user's whom were voting in difference to your vote. It is completely unnecessary and makes the process needlessly combative. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 07:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Zip Codes/WikiSource
I took at look at the inclusion criteria on WikiSource and it says "Statistical source data (such as election results)", which this could fall under. But it also says "Contributions are not limited to this list, of course". I have posted to a couple admin users and will see what they say. Take Care.....SVRTVDude (VT) 04:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Acorn98 (talk • contribs)
Speedy delete template
re: Simen Nystad
Thanks. I'll add {{db-attack}} to my editing arsonal. Clerks. 20:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I like you, you are cool. Well done for all your efforts. I reward you with this great barnstar. Hope you enjoy. Dom58! 16:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
|
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| You deserve a barnstar. Dom58! 16:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC) |
Unblock request
I ain't Jain yankee. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
"Rawr and stuff"
Interesting signature, and probably the first time I've seen a "rawr" on Wikipedia. User:Tony Fox has "Arf!" for his talk page... and take a look at what I have. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 19:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Just thought I'd drop a line informing you of my request for adminship. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your signature
It helped me decode out how to write up my own (and eventually I got it right. ;) ) LaughingVulcan Laugh With Me / Logical Entries 02:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Darnitol?!!
Still chucking about the Darnitol! (here). I think I could use some. Thanks for the laugh! HeirloomGardener 01:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reconsidering your recommendation on this AfD. --Metropolitan90 05:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Brian Crecente
How was a non-user able to AfD? I thought that only users could create the new page necessary ... ?
Also, please do a quick Google on "Brian Crecente" and you'll see that there are approx 127,000 hits. Additionally he is the editor of a Top-40 blog (per Technorati). If you could check a couple of the first links in Google I think you'll see that there is notability per the General notability guidelines.
If you agree I would ask that you consider changing your recommendation. Drew30319 22:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The link may be helpful, right? [Brian Crecente] Drew30319 22:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
With respect to the creation of the AfD, Wiki states: "Note that if you are editing under an IP address because you have not yet created a user account, you will not be able to complete the AfD process, as anonymous contributors are currently unable to create new pages (as required by step 2 of "How to list pages for deletion," below)."
There were many changes made to the article so it may be that the user found a way to go around this restriction through some type of machinations. Who knows ... Drew30319 18:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- What happened is the anon put his rationale for deletion on the article along with the notice. User:Uncle G then removed his rationale, and completed the process for him. I had previously made the offer of completing any potential AfD to the user, on my own talk page. I guess he just decided to put it all on the talk page, and Uncle G got there before I did. --Dreaded Walrus t c 06:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Review an article
Hi Dennis, if it isn't asking too much, can you please view the edits to the article "Adriana de Barros"? I've rewritten it, and would like to know if it is fine now. Thanks for your time. Breathe200 16:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I hope I haven't done something too horribly wrong...
This was deleted. I have undeleted it and moved it hither. Thereafter I redeleted List of ZIP Codes in Wisconsin. I hope that's not too incredibly out of line. Lemme know your thoughts. Tomertalk 00:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I have rewritten the article with references. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 06:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Re:Creating AfDs
Thanks and sorry, I didn't know how to add it. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:I-can-has-cheezburger.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:I-can-has-cheezburger.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Poker Slang
No worries - the shift to DRV is the correct action. You can't close many XfDs without upsetting the occasional editor - I'm sure I've been accused of worse. I'm not bothered by it. Cheers, WilyD 20:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Disgraceful. Rude actions are not made better by further rude actions. It's not "bold" to ignore policy. Shame on you. 2005 23:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
List of classic concentration cars
I thought about nominating List of classic concentration cars for a speedy deletion, but I thought that the phrase "classic concentration cars" might mean something special of which I was not aware. ●DanMS • Talk 00:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)