User talk:DESiegel

Intro

Archives

• Archive 1 My talk page from 10 Feb 2005 thru 6 Sept 2005.
• Archive 2 My talk page from 6 Sept 2005 thru 19 Dec 2005.
• Archive 3 My talk page from 20 Dec 2005 thru 10 Feb 2006.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello DESiegel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Flockmeal 20:21, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Tools

My Utility Links

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion	Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion
List of Stub Types	Wikipedia:Stub
Wikipedia:Cite sources	Wikipedia:Footnote3
Wikipedia:Template messages	Category:Wikipedians looking for help

Special watches

• Shared IP often used for vandalism

Procedure

This is my talk page. Please add msgs to the bottom, Please sign all msgs with four tildas (like this ~~~~). I will genreally preserve all comments, positive or negative, and archive them when the page gets too large. But I may choose to delete vandalism or nonsense. Thank you for comunicatiing with me. DES ^(talk) 03:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

A note about User:205.210.232.62

When I make an edit without having been logged in (often because my log-in cookie has expired and I was not aware of it) I often seem to be editing from the IP 205.210.232.62. Most if not all of the edits from this IP seem to be mine. However, I am not sure that all such edits are mine, or that they always will be, and i am sure that all edits I have made not-logged-in are not credited to this IP. If you see an edit on the above IP, please feel free to ask if it is in fact my edit. DES ^(talk) 16:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Page name for temperature articles

To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 23:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

User Freedom template

Hi - Could you or someone else re-protect Template:User_freedom ? I have had to revert 2 Tfd attempts by User:MarkSweep , who by the way deleted it during a debate on Jan.22.

Template:Orphaned fairuse not replaced

Hello. I'm dropping you a message, since you were the creator of this template. I've updated it to be in the style of {{no source}}. I did this, because I felt that Category:Orphaned fairuse images is getting overly crowded. This will make the whole process of deletion a lot faster on the administrators' side. If you disagree with my change or require some further modifications, please let me know.SoothingR 13:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:David Siegel.jpg

Hi, this image has been tagged as "orphaned fair use" by a bot, since fair use images cannot be used on user pages. Please change its license, or at least remove the tag: it currently appears at GMaxwell's live report and someone could delete it. Mushroom (Talk) 01:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the tag since you don't seem to be currently active. Mushroom (Talk) 17:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

New Wickipedian concern

I clicked to your profile page from a discussion section on an article on the so-called Southern Ivy League. I am new to Wikipedia, wanted to raise a concern about this article, and didn't know how. In short, this is a truly bogus Wikipedia entry, as I tried to note in the appropriate places in the discussion section. There is simply no such thing as a Southern Ivy Leage -- I went to Vanderbilt, and I know. I also called Vanderbilt's alumni association and they laughed at me on the phone. It's not even "colloquial" as the article claims. The article appears to be supported by a certain group of people who dominate the discussion board, and appear to "report people" (?) when they try to submit the article for deletion. One of the frequent commenters' alias is "Vandy", which imples he or she went to Vanderbilt (this is the same person on the board who apparently reported someone for challenging the article. In my humble but informed opinion, this unsourced article is pure boosterism, and does no credit to the Wikipedia endeavor. It's simply not a factual article, and it should be deleted altogther, but I don't want to break any rules. Can you give me guidance? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.255.9.254 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Date links

Since you have taken an interest in date links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application. bobblewik 20:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Plantanos - demo of alternative for redirect

This title is being added to categories for Plantain, because it just includes the article rather than actually using the standard redirect mechanism. Is that what's intended, or am I missing something...?

Waitak 05:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

PokeRealm - inflammatory article

The entry for PokeRealm consists of false statements and defamation against my website. Rather than get in an edit war, I am asking you to blank it (if it isn't already) and lock it. If not, let me know what I can do about it. Thanks. Zeroality 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Chew Valley Lake FAC

Hi, I've resubmitted Chew Valley Lake as a featured article candidate, because it didn't receive enough support last time.

As you have edited this page in the past I wondered if you would be willing to visit and comment/support on the nomination? Rod 20:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the PokeRealm Entry once again

Hello, mathwiz had deleted the PokeRealm entry and said he would delete/protect if it was re-created. Well, it has been re-created three times so the page obviously needs to be deleted and protected. Thanks for your time. Zeroality 15:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Conern regarding Japanese wikipedia

I'm a Japanese but I mainly participate in English Wikipedia. I rarely edit Japanese wikipedia because I'm quite out of touch with Japan and Japanese. I have notice that delete war is far more common in some Japanese pages and I also notice that many delete edits are based on netrality claim. This I found it to be odd given that NPOV should be solved by attribution rather than deletion. I checked Japanese page for NPOV and found out that the Japanese translation of NPOV policy article has slightly difference which fundamentally alter the nuance of original philosophy. The original English page state that

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."

In Japanese page, this is translated as

"ウィキペディアには大切な方針があります：大まかにいえば、全ての観点からの意見を公正に考慮して、偏った観点を排した記事を書くべきだ、というものです。これは、記事は偏りのない「客観的な」観点に基づいてのみ書くことができる、と誤解されることもありますが、そうではありません。ウィキペディアの中立性についての方針は、論争での全ての観点を公正に考慮することで、記事には特定の立場が正しいと明記したり、暗示したりするべきではない、というものなのです。" - "Wikipedia has important policy: In summary, this means that all viewpoint from different perspective ought to be considered fairly, and write article without biased view. This is often mistakenly understood as asserting that one can write article "solely" based on "objective" poivnt of view. But this is not the case. Wikipedia NPOV policy means that it ought to consider different perspective in the debate fairly and it should not write or imply in the article that one position is correct.

The signficant difference is that, in the English version, it is clearly stated that confliciting view "are fairly presented". In Japanese wikipedia, it is changed to "are fairly considered". Moreover, the statement "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one." and "Readers are left to form their won opinions" are missing. The later part of the page do discuss issue dealing with attribution but I think this is one reason NPOV is poorly understood among some Japanese wikipedians. Who should I take up this issue? I felt that Japanese wikipedia management is not the right place to raise this issue. FWBOarticle

I edited Japanese page by simply inserting a direct translation. I then tried to find out how verifiability and no original research policy page has been edited. After going to English page for "verifiability" and "no original research", I noticed that there are no link to Japanese wikipedia article from either pages. So I went back to Japanese wikipedia, then realise that there is no mention of verifiability or no original research policy. Is it the intention of wikipedia foundation to let each different version of wikipedia to set their own editorial policy? I don't believe it to be the case. According to the founder, these three policies suppose to be absolute and non-negotiable. What's going on? Japanese wikipedia site does not appear to have proper oversite structure? FWBOarticle

Concerned about biased editing

Hi,

I'm not an expert on the workings of Wiki but I have made some corrections and minor edits of some of the articles about England. I am concerned that the articles are reverted back to their original state after a while. I appreciate that the whole point of Wiki is that anyone can edit articles but the articles are biased towards a particular political view and not in the least impartial.

For instance, there are some articles which incorrectly claim that English and British nationalism are effectiveley one in the same and they are not. There are also articles which claim that English devolution is not popular amongst English people when it is.

What can I do?

Wikipedia:Now Hiring

Reading a comment of your's ([1]), I thought you may want to be made aware of Wikipedia:Now Hiring. Cheers.--Sean Black ^(talk) 22:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hope all is well

Hello David. It looks like you've been away for nearly three months now. I hope all is well with you and yours. If you liked your experience on Wikipedia, it's my hope that you will someday return to editing: there will never be enough quality editors and administrators. As always, best wishes —Encephalon 14:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about a popularity contest. As a producer that has sold tens of thousands of videos thru Sin City and Legend as well as in Europe I am not interested in having my fans flood the wiki with counter comments, (which I could and mayby I should to balance out and make sure that an emerging point of view gets consideration) This is about ideas. Wikipedia if it is to be a scholarly source is an ENCYCLOPEDIA NOT A POPULAR PORN GUY LIST.  An Alexia ranking has no bearing on the ideas the site represents, and the validity of the expression of them . This is about introducing a new genre and approach to erotica and I believe it deserves to be noted, because it REJECTS the tired and thought less porn that many people are tired of and gets us to think about doing something different.

Bang Buss and Sex pervs of Russia or whatever don't represent ideas about a different way of pursuing the art of porn. The fact that Asiaerotica has been on line since 1996 without any promotion or other tricks of the trade means that the intent with the project is to do something unique...which it has (and has been copied extensivly, we have been doing gonzo video in Asia since 1983) and not to win a mindless AVN award. This alone means that the efforts deserve academic note..which is the point here. Why is it that this section has been turned over to the complete control of the few who monitor this section's "favourite porno guys". Will your editorial criticisms and quick claims for deletion stand up to review by a higher level of authority in the wiki's food chain? Let's hope not or ... all someone who is interested in the history and state of this genere will learn about is what ever is popular at the moment. This is not the way knowledge is documented in an academic setting, but it is DEFINATELY the way a private club works.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinggism (talk • contribs)

TfD nomination of Template:Delete

Template:Delete has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Wisden17 19:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Contract bridge

Hi. You might be interested in participating in new Wikipedia:WikiProject Contract bridge. Regards, Duja 10:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing war over the Washington University Seal

Hi name is Astuishin, I'm sorry to bother you but I believe that there is an editing war over the placement of the Washington University Seal. I personal believe that seal should remain in the article, just as University seals are incorporated in other university articles, like Harvard or Northwestern, however User:Clyerla disagrees and as been alluding to legal ramifications for wikipedia (see Talk:Washington University in St. Louis) if the seal is kept in. For the past couple of days we have sparing over the placement of the seal. I simply like to get your opinion on the issue. Thanks--Astuishin 22:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dragon Knight

I added some revisions to the wiki concerning this series before creating an account, though I left subject material beyond book one up to speculation. The object is to get people to read them.

On an irrelevant note, I saw a bit in your description concerning APL. Always hoped to learn it, but never went about learning the character set or where to possibly get a keyboard overlay (too bad none are available for the ZBoard).

TVR Enthusiast

In regards to your comment on my talk page, I actually DId use a source. Readers Digest Facts & Fallacies Page 135

ISBN 0-89577-273-6

Copyright 1988 The Reader's DIgest Association, Inc.

I have scanned the source article with the relevant information and uploaded it to this locale

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear DESiegel—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on a new push at [2] to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 14:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Need people with an opinion

Hey there. I noticed that in the past, you have participated in a discussion about Filmoraphies and lists of works in general here. There is now a RfC discussing this and more aspects here. It would be nice if you took a look and gave your comments on those matters. Thank you. theroachman^TC 11:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Shamblin page

Hello, I've been working on the Gwen Shamblin page. I noticed you had worked there in the past.

I want to get the 'articles with unsourced statements" tag off of this article. Could you give me some pointers on whipping this page into shape? I have annotated everything I could think of today. Efkeathley March 29, 2007

• A reference is needed for the statement that the "Remnant Fellowship Church currently has over 120 locations" and a timestamp (as of) link needs to be provided to indicate when 'currently" refers to.

• the link [3] goes to a site which requires a paid subscription before a user can read the citation. This makes it not a good reference. it should be replaced with a better reference for "Shamblin's advocacy of a specific religious belief led Thomas Nelson Publishers to cancel the publication of Exodus, her next work. Many churches who advocate Trinity also dropped her program."

• The link http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/970505/archive_006847.htm is broken and should be replaced with a valid citation for "According to Ms. Shamblin, people should only eat when they feel real, physical hunger and stop when full, and should use prayer and Bible reading to fill emotional needs. Overeating is equated with gluttony and is a sin."

Still i think the article is fairly well referenced at this time, and would be quite well referenced if these issues are dealt with. DES ^(talk) 20:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! I have tracked all the cites down now (except her birthday, which seems to be deliberately hidden) and I'm happy to see the "unsourced" bit gone. I anticipate a bit of traffic on this page with all the new bits on. Shamblin will continue to make the news here for a while yet, I suspect! Efkeathley March 30, 2007

Responded on User talk:Efkeathley. DES ^(talk) 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Karn'age

Hi. I received a message from you saying that the notibility of an article called "Karn'age" has been questioned (and now seems deleted). Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know, I never created an article of that name. And I honestly don't even know what Karn'age is! If you can reply, please do so because I'm a little confused. Perhaps the message was sent to the wrong user? Spellcast 02:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded on User talk:Spellcast. DES ^(talk) 21:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

QUBYX

Hi, Unaware of the law, the products details and few texts were entered that puts the contents under advertising category. Now , the text for qubyx is made simple but more useful to the medical imaging and color management industries by providing useful display technology solutions.

The text under qubyx is revised now has no text that is advertising products,person. Kindly review over the text now and thus requesting you to put off the deletion tag.

Thanks and best regards. qubyxrao

Responded on User talk:Qubyxrao. DES ^(talk) 21:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hardy Boys Pages

While the articles are sparse, there is no reason that ultimately there can't be a well written article for each book. One thing to consider is that we don't need to worry about "relative value" notability... basically per WP:PAPER. Let's not kill the snowman by throwing out the first few flakes. If you do post these articles into AfD, please notify me on my talk page so I may contribute my arguments there. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 00:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to see what would be in such articles beyond a plot summery, and as per WP:FICT such articles are not good. I think that a long list of basically similar books such as this are much better served in a single central article rather than lots of tiny stubs. Please recall that I am the person who did the merge on Aubrey–Maturin series, merging 20 small separate articles into one large useful article -- and IMO there is far more to say in an article about one of those individual books than about one of the Hardy Boys volumes.

I Have nominated these articles for Proposed Deletion, because I thought they technically didn't comply with WP:CSD although i was tempted to simply delete them. (People way over-use {{db-context}} IMO). If you chose to remove the {{prod}} tags, please let me know, so i can consider whether to AfD them. DES ^(talk) 00:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifically note that WP:FICT says: "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic". Just how much "real-world context and sourced analysis" do you expect to find on these works? DES ^(talk) 00:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 01:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

RE:American

Oh, my goodness, I'm sorry! I guess I was a bit rushed and didn't think it through...I'll go remove the tag...--Mousey.Mouse 23:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone did that already. Thank you for telling me (I'm new...third day here!), I'll try to be better! --Mousey.Mouse 23:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the advice. Oh, and one more thing. Try to type slower next time, I've found 7 typos already... Other than that, happy editing! --Mousey.Mouse 23:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks (I guess). --Mousey.Mouse 23:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no, I can see that you're being helpful. It was just a little creepy at first about how you were helping me. It's like there are these people watching you...Squeak

Like the contributions? It's in my "Nav" subpage. mouseymouse

Jen Banbury

No problem. People frequently make mistakes with that particular criterion (that and G1 - patent nonsense), so I've been checking all the A7s bios very carefully. You've obviously found quite a bit of information and sources. Great job! Natalie 03:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All of my info and sources came out of the first two pages of a google search on her name -- not really tricky reasearch. I agree, lots of people over use A7 and G1, and db-context. That's why i undeleted this and expanded it a bit. The origianl was not well written, but the key facts were there. DES ^(talk) 03:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate those criteria are mis-used so often, since they are so importand and are made very clear on the talk page. I think part of the problem is that someone comes along and sees that the wrong criterion was applied, removed the speedy tag, and then goes on with their life. Then the editor that mis-tagged never learns! Natalie 03:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. This all kind of happened at the same time, so I didn't notice that it had been deleted and recreated. Well, I can't say I agree with their logic in this particular case, since there was a claim of notability (however small). I suppose what matters in the end is that the article is still here and has even improved. Natalie 04:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Jen Banbury

Frankly, from this version (sans ANY reference/citations), it is quite difficult to justify notability. The current version after your edits is different, and definitely wouldn't have been removed. I stand by my original decision to delete, based on the version on CSD . But thanks for improving the article a lot. --Ragib 03:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

RE:Font sizes

Alright, then. I'll see if I can change it. Thanks for the advice! mouseymouse

Talk:Tamilnet

We are looking for some guidance regarding policy discussions and related edit warring in this article. Thanks RaveenS 13:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to say my sincere thanks for helping out with the Tamilnet article. Your initiative in well appericiated and I look forward working with you if further problem is to arrive. Thanks and take care Watchdogb 02:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it was a great lesson we learnt about how rules can be used and misused. Thanks for all your great work. If not for Wikipedians like you taking your valubale time on onbscure subject matters, this will not be worth our time. RaveenS 15:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. I hope and trust that it was simply a case of some people misunderstanding Wikipedia policy, not any intentional misuse of the rules. And do be careful not to fall into the opposite trap. Just because a source is reliable enough to be worth citing, does not mean that that source is the last word. As I said on the talk page, multiple reliable sources from differing viewpoints, are generally better, particularly in a controversial article such as this one. DES ^(talk) 17:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes thanks, I have found a lot more references since my last time editing it. I have them under further reading. Once I locate them it will get even better, meanwhile I had requested a peer review [4] get additional input to make the article even better. Thanks again RaveenS 19:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

About RSSBus deletion

hello DESiegel

It seems that you validated the RSSBus I created and wrote this to my talk page.

You posted to the talk page of this article asking that it not be deleted. My response (copied from the talk page to help ensure that you see it) is: Then reduce to a stub and work off-line until you have something worth posting. Be prepared to include citations showing notability of this product (the article title appears to be about a product rather than a company). Please review WP:CORP and WP:SPam before proceeding. It its current state, this article is well within the deletion criteria. DES (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am still new on Wikipedia and I am willing to learn. You tell me that to do a stub, that's exactly what I did. I am positive, I added a stub tag. Therefore I don't understand what you meant on my talk page?

About the fact that this article was describing a product lacking notability. Would you please tell me the difference with the Yahoo Pipes article Yahoo_pipes ?

Finally, how can I work on this article to put it back online in a form thats suits more the wikipedia policy? That's to say, where can I find the article once it is deleted ? Actually, I don't want to rewrite the whole thing, i would better start from what it was.

In advance, thank you for your response.

Dockurt2k 16:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

By "Reduce to a stub" I meant not just adding a stub tag, but deleting the content that looked like advertising, and leaving only a very short identification of the company while you drafted an article off line. But the article has since been deleted, so that point is moot.

I haven't (yet) reviewed Yahoo pipes, it may well be a page for a non-notable product that no one has yet noticed and taken action about. In general due to the distributed nature of work on wikipedia, defending an article or practice by saying "It's no worse than XYZ" gets the response "XYZ is a poor example, clean up this page and then we'll get to that one."

Admins have access to deleted articles, although non-admins don't. (That is one of the very few differences.) I can, if you wish, retrieve a copy of the article as it was before it was deleted, and move a copy to a page in your userspace such as User:Dockurt2k/RSSbus draft. Or I could email it to you. I will do either if you so request. If you ask for the page in userspace, please be aware that this should be only for the temporary purpose of drafting an acceptable version of the article. if after a reasonable time nothing has been done with it, any admin can, and I will, simply delete it again. Also please be aware that while it is in your userspace you should not create links from the article space to it. If you want assistance in drafting a more acceptable version, please ask. Once an acceptable version has been drafted, it should be moved (not cut & pasted) to articlespace. This will preserve the editing history. I or any admin can help you with this, if you wish, or see requested moves. I urge you to get a more experienced wikipedian to review the draft when you think it is ready for article space. I also urge that you review WP:COI, WP:SPAM, and the page on notability.

I hope this is helpful. DES (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Note that the Yahoo pipes article references independant coverage from IT Week which goes a long way toward establishing notability, in general press or media coverage of a non-trivial nature (not including press releases, ads, or blogs) will establish the notability of a product. DES (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank You for your quick response. I wasn't trying to say that the yahoo pipes article was worse, just to know the difference, you gave it in the P.S, thank you.

I would be grateful If you can move the last version to Dockurt2k/RSSbus draft. Dockurt2k 16:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot for your expert help with the copyright question. Keep up the good work. Steve Dufour 01:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

?

Most of my edits are not showing up in my contributions page (mostly the speedy-deletion ones). Why not? mouseymouse

Alright. Thank you, Squeak 17:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)