User talk:Dank

	1 (12/07-4/08) - 2 (5/08-7/08) - 3 (8/08-11/08)
	4 (12/08-2/09) - 5 (Mar) - 6 (Apr)
	Declined speedy deletions (Mar, Apr)

Instant IRC

I'll reply to your message here; if I post on your talkpage, I'll watch for a message there.

Admin stuff	Copyediting	Declined speedy deletions	Images	Links	News around Wikipedia	Shiny things	WP:Update

Good job

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	I'm feeling generous today and just saw you clearing out CSD. Accept this as appreciation of your good work :-) Patton^t/c 13:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balladyna

This is not a SPAM look at imdb

ITS BALLADYNA/ THE BAIT also at pl.wikipedia.org - Balladyna (film)

See WP:NFF; typically, we don't allow articles about films unless and until they've been released and widely reviewed in English-language sources. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this is US -POL co-production, but Why somebody deleted Dariusz Zawislak as a director he had previous works could you help: Iook at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1002241/ Dariusz Zawislak http://www.filmweb.pl/o13373/Dariusz+Zawiślak http://www.adyton.eu Would you be consider to undelete page or create new based on pl.wikipedia.org - Dariusz Zawiślak Best regards M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MARTHA WARTA 2000 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Thanks for the heads up. Admittedly, I considered a name change request after R'n'B passed RfA, but to be honest, there's only been one instance of confusion to my knowledge (some time ago, an experienced troll vandalized R'n'B's page after I speedied their nonsense article). If it becomes more of an issue or if R'n'B would prefer that I change my name, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but for the moment I think I'm content to just take a wait and see. Thanks again. Rnb (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, happy editing. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for PlayBox TV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of PlayBox TV. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cha Cha Moon is back

Hi. I was patrolling the NewPages when I found Cha Cha Moon. I added a prod tag and added it to my watchlist. I noticed that you've already deleted the page. Just wanted to let you know. --Gardenhoser! (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it and salted it for 3 months. The same editor had added promotional links to Chinese cuisine, so I gave him a {{uw-spam4im}} warning. Thanks much for pointing it out. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a moment

If you have a moment, I could use a hand or a referral to someone else who can help deal with this mess. At the current rate of things its going to get very ugly for everyone involved and I've done just about everything I can think of to avoid that. Tothwolf (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't tell what was going on. I'm not good with behavioral issues (ANI, ArbCom). Is there a deletion review coming up you want me to look at? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far it hasn't gone to ANI or ARB but I'm trying to determine if thats where it needs to go next. I've not yet filed a DRV, after looking though all the material I'm not sure it even should have one. A quick summary of the UCFD discussion is the only person pushing for these to be removed is VegaDark. The only other person who "voted" in the UCFD (which happened last December) was a SPA active on Wikipedia for ~4 months who "retired" immediately after an unsuccessful RFA. He scattered votes around random places around the time of the RFA and one of them just happened to end up on the UCFD for these categories. The main problem here is VegaDark has an agenda and has been trying to establish precedents to use for category deletions (specifically user categories). I can back up my claims with diffs and links (I'm typing this up in a hurry as I'm short on free time atm) but I'm just not sure where to go with this next. I've been trying my best to not step on toes since I returned to Wikipedia but I'm not sure I can avoid doing that in this case. Can you think of someone who would be willing to have an impartial look at this mess and lend a hand in trying to clean it up? Tothwolf (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's really quite simple- If you think the deletion debate was improper, file a DRV. I've said this numerous times now. What exactly is so hard about doing that? All the arguments you are making are arguments to be making at DRV. I'm not exactly sure what you expect Dank55 to do here. As for the other user who participated in the discussion, I have no clue how you came to the conclusion he was an SPA, but whatever argument you might have to help back up that claim should once again be made on a deletion review if you think that should change the outcome of the decision. As for me having an "agenda and has been trying to establish precedents to use for category deletions (specifically user categories)" I certainly make no claim otherwise. My agenda is for user categories to be collaborative, and I've nominated hundreds of them for deletion that I don't think have met this goal, simple as that. If you are asserting there is some sort of problem with this, then perhaps you should better familiarize yourself with the way Wikipedia works, as this isn't anything new. If you are honestly hoping for someone to step in and say "you know what? That deletion was improper, and you know what else? We don't even need a deletion review to overturn it!", then all I can say is good luck with that. I don't know why you seemingly refuse to file a DRV, but since that seems to be the case, and as I've given you ample time and notice to do so, the merge pursuant to the UCFD closure will be enacted in the timeline I noted on your userpage. For the thousandth time, I strongly urge you to file a deletion review if you think the closure was improper. VegaDark (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the elements here are things I really don't have much experience with ... behavioral issues, sockpuppets, category work. The general idea on Wikipedia is that when you're having a problem, you don't pick a kind-looking person and ask for help; instead, you take the problem to the proper forum, and then whoever wants to volunteer their time will help you out. DRV sounds like the right place to go for this. If you think VegaDark might be doing something shifty but you're not sure what or how to handle it, you might try some lightweight process like Third opinion for mediation. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan – I'm sorry VegaDark followed me over here.
Thanks for the pointers. I'm rather disappointed with how bureaucratic things have become here on Wikipedia since I was originally active. At this point I don't think DRV really is the place to deal with the underlying issues. I'm trying my best to remain civil while dealing with this but it hasn't been easy. Tothwolf (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VegaDark, I'm only going to say this one more time: Please stop trying to put words in my mouth. Tothwolf (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At no point in my last reply did I even come close to putting words in your mouth. I have no clue what portion of it you are claiming me to have done so. I also have to say I don't appreciate your tone, and remind you to stay civil. VegaDark (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who tends to hang around Deletion Review, I can understand why people are reluctant to use it. The style of argument there is difficult and legalistic--not was the decision was, but was the process by which the decision was made wrong. Still, Deletion Review tends to come to the right result more than half the time: I'd say about 55%. So you might as well go there and toss the coin, which is pretty much what it amounts to. (You might ask why i work there if it's such a problematic thing--I work there to try to get it from 50% to 55%. and I hope eventually to 60% and so forth.) Nothing in a system like this is likely to ever come out right all the time. Myself, I much prefer asking people for help than using formal process. What can work in a system like this is persuasion. Vega, i know i won't persuade you, but even by your principle, there are a very broad range of things that help collaboration. DGG (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, only 55%? I hope we get it right more often at CSD; I think we do, but maybe I'm fooling myself. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I suddenly changed my mind and agreed that, in retrospect, we should keep the category (which is far from true), I would still want proper process followed in doing so, meaning a DRV would need to be filed. As someone who frequents DRV I can only infer, DGG, that you also care strongly about process being followed properly. I can also only assume you would agree that not following the UCFD closure simply because one user believes it to be invalid (and refuses to file a DRV over it) is certainly no reason to ignore standard wikipedia procedures. VegaDark (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VegaDark, for the record the only reason I've not yet taken this to DRV is I've been extremely busy. I've got a lot going on outside of Wikipedia right now which is why I'm also not doing as much editing. I'm doing good to keep up with a handful of XfDs and reply to editors on other talk pages at the moment. The fact that these categories sat in a backlog for over 3 months also shows that this is not a critical/pressing matter.
Now, you know as well as I do the UCFD where these two categories were "discussed" is shaky/borderline at best. It is hard to see "Consensus" when discussion amounted to your nomination and one drive-by vote of someone hoping to make it through an RFA. How about this, lets notify every single editor listed in the categories and templates involved and ask them to weigh in on the discussion? To be honest, I'm not sure why this isn't done as a matter of course for user categories anyway. Tothwolf (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've made over 100 edits over the course of a week since originally saying you were planning on bringing this to DRV (and even longer since I originally asked you to bring this to DRV), and have since said no less than twice that you don't really think DRV is the appropriate venue for the situation at hand. My assumption of good faith must be stretched to believe that you were too busy to write one, when you have had no problem explaining various theories on different user's talk pages as to why you think there are issues with this UCFD in that same time. If you do now in fact intend on filing one though, I am glad. As for the UCFD being "shaky/borderline", I would disagree 100%. Your accusation of the other user simply "fly by voting" on various things in order to get enough edits to pass an RfA doesn't seem well founded at all to me, and frankly even if if this accusation is true I don't believe that should automatically void his XfD participation. Who's to say what level of thought this user put in to his XfD participation, even if the sole goal of this participation was with the intent of passing an RfA. Finally, I've noted before that many XfDs are closed with only the nominator as a participant, meaning even if your accusation is 100% true and there is a consensus to discount the other participant, the UCFD would still be valid, although you might have a better case to look at the merits of the category in a deletion review to determine if consensus has changed or not. The fact the merge has been waiting 3 months to be performed could be argued for any unperformed XfD- Just because someone didn't quickly enact it doesn't mean the door is now open to indefinitely suspend enacting that closure based on one user's complaint. Individually notifying every user in a particular category has been mentioned many times before, and dismissed as a form of canvassing (a user within a category is going to be much more likely to support keeping said category than, say, a disinterested user looking over deletion discussions. Plus, anyone particularly interested should have the category on their watchlist if they want to know if the category is up for deletion. VegaDark (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(For the record, most of the edits VegaDark seems to be referring to was the repopulation of Category:Artificial satellites formerly orbiting Earth after the 2009 March 28 DRV, which took around 30-45 minutes.)
Actually, I personally think it would be a great idea to notify the ~450 users involved in these templates and categories. What better way to gauge real consensus? I have no doubt most of them would not agree with you, but doesn't that mean that your own POV might not really be in consensus with everyone else? Tothwolf (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VegaDark, Do you want to take this to AN/I and ARB? [1] [2]
--Tothwolf (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, If this discussion is getting to be too much for your talk page, feel free to move the whole section over to mine. As I mentioned earlier I never intended for VegaDark to follow me over here. Sorry about all the noise :) Tothwolf (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Un-deletion

Hey Dank55, you recently deleted my user page on my own request. Well, I changed my mind about the retirement within the last 24 hours and I would like to humbly ask if it much trouble to un-delete or restore it. If it is necessary to go through many official channels I'd rather refrain from it, there was not much on the user page that was worth keeping, anyway. Well, the table with articles I have contributed to maybe. doxTxob \ ^talk 04:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I undeleted, then someone deleted a few seconds later, then I undeleted again :) Happy editing, hope you're back. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Dank55! I am sorry to have caused you extra work by my premature decision to have the page deleted. I was angry about a few things not going right on Wikipedia but quitting is not the way to go. I will think a little longer next time. Thank you again, I appreciate your help, doxTxob \ ^talk 01:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting angry is cool with me. Let me know if I can help. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism Concern

Please speedy delete this (again) R3ap3R.inc (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. I also left a message on their talk page; I'm encouraged that they were at least willing to pick a new username as I asked them to when I blocked them. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlucci Weyant

I have a question, how is the new page that I have put up promotional? This actor has major A-list films that have been noted in websites and articles all across the world, has a film that won a number of features and works with some of the top members of Hollywood. I do not understand. I do all of his pr from putting up all his websites to signing him and maintaining all the other websites including model mayhem, myspace and any other small public site. This is for publicity reason. Please do further due diligence as this is a person that many people know and have repeatedly requested him to be on wikipedia. Thank you. - Francesa R. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.144.155 (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Npov#Characterizing opinions of people's work describes the tone we're looking for; look at other articles on Wikipedia about actors. Any article that's been worked on carefully won't have promotional sentences like the ones that were in that article: "A natural born net worker, Weyant built extensive networks and opened distribution channels from traditional marketing to cutting edge viral campaigns", and "This New York native is a classically trained actor and has relationships with some of the top minds in Hollywood". Also, that article was a copyright violation, copied word for word. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for clearing that up, all the bio's were created by me but in any case if I change the wording to meet wiki's requirements will be able to post it up. If you could give me a few pointers that would be excellent. Thank you so much for all your help - Ces —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.144.155 (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best would be to register a username so that it's easier for people to leave messages for you, then write a short article on your own talk page and post a message asking for feedback at WT:ACTOR, which is the project where people discuss actors. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of America's 100 greatest golf courses

You redirected this article "per discussion on talk page" yet there was no such discussion. I would simply ask that there be a true discussion over a reasonable period before automatically redirecting. As shown by the "under construction" tag, I am working on developing this into an acceptable article. Only one other editor has expressed actual opposition and seems determined not to allow any further development or even discussion and used your redirect as a supposed Admin decision. I would appreciate it if you would explain your position on the article's talk page. Thank you. Toounstable (talk) 04:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know that there was an ongoing discussion. I weighed in there. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

help required for revision of article

Hi Dank55, i posted an article naming Vopium, through my another account but both article and account were deleted. then i switched to my old account (ie current one) and writing you this message. I have revised the article for re-posting. I've tried to make all of the information in the article factually correct and accurately described Vopium alongwith references throughout. I have tried my best to make it look like encyclopedic but i would also like to ask you that what you feel is the best path forward for resubmitting? I will highly thankful for the kind help. Mansoor.ehsan (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first problem is notability. Is the product out of beta yet? Can you find articles that mention the product in some significant way in online versions of printed newspapers, magazines or books? Most of the sources you used don't help establish notability. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Natural User Interface

You would make a much better service by editing the article than deleting it all. Natural User Interface (NUI) is a term widly used in interaction design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction_design)... To everybody else check the Google cached article: http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:u8Z1onx42Y4J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_User_Interface+natural+user+interface —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.58.164.167 (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were no references supporting the notability of the "Natural User Interface Group". - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A face from the old...

Well, sort of. I was on low-activity mode from October to February, and I missed your elevation to the great office of janitor. Congratulations. I hope you are handling your new role well and without any of the stress that often comes with it.

I am slowly increasing my involvement with the community, although I have dropped a few of the items in my old agenda. I don't know how the Manual of Style clean-up is going (or whether you are still working on it), but I do not expect to do anything in this area in the near future, and maybe for longer than that. Apart from a mild interest in the progress of this matter, I simply cannot afford the resources to become more active there. Therefore, unless you have a use for it, I propose dismantling the experimental system we started developing last year for the documentation of the Manual and deleting its associated pages (everything listed here and any connected talk pages). It's a pity, but then again imagine how many such enterprises must have ended up in the dustbin throughout Wikipedia... Waltham, The Duke of 16:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up to my neck in moppery and enjoying it. Welcome back! How is school? I mostly do WP:CSD these days, so yeah, feel free to remove any of the WT:MOS stuff. You might enjoy the monthly WP:Update. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking; school is going well, certainly better than in the previous semester, at least. I've just started my two-week Easter break (Orthodox Easter is a week after the Catholic one), hence the delay in replying (adjustment period), for which I apologise.

I have taken note of the updates, and you are to be commended for your diligent work in preparing them. They fill an important information gap in Wikipedia, and although I do not follow them that closely myself, I understand that they are especially useful for people dealing with FAs and the like, as well as participating in many meta-discussions.

Regarding the pages, I wonder if you might be so kind as to delete them yourself. As you say, you specialise in speedy deletions, and the fact that you have contributed to some of the pages in question might be an issue with a CSD request otherwise. And there is the posting of all those "db" templates, of course. :-) Therefore, three birds with one stone. Waltham, The Duke of 14:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I'll get to it this morning. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 11:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great job so far, Dan, and I thank you for it. There are only User talk:The Duke of Waltham/MoS/Charts and User talk:The Duke of Waltham/MoS/Charts/Manual of Style left, and then the whole thing will be almost as if it had never happened. Then I can get my watchlist to include just 82 pages, which is quite an improvement from the 120+ it had before my recent cleanup.

And that will probably be the last bit of housekeeping I'll need for some time. The rest of my userspace is pretty tidy, although a few pages probably need updating.

I had never thought I'd be too bored to do that. I wonder whether this is a sign of Wikipedian maturity—in the sense that I care more about the mainspace and discussions than about my own pages—or plain lack of enthusiasm. Waltham, The Duke of 22:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you've got better things to do, which can only be good ... you've got your whole life ahead of you, as people like to say for some absurd reason. (I've got this recollection that ancient Greeks pictured man as walking backwards through time, since that would let him see where he had been but not where he was about to go ... so they said the future was "behind" and the past was in "front" ... does modern Greek do that?) Anyway ... speedy deletion policy and WP:USER policy won't let me delete talk pages in your userspace unless you're exercising WP:RTV (which I hope you're not), and people at places like RFA care about misapplication of speedy deletion rules more than anything else. Will blanking them serve you just as well? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better things? Well, that relies on interpretation. I am continuing my research on the Palace of Westminster, as well as reading a book on cryptography a friend of mine has lent me, The Code Book.

Modern Greek does not treat the past and the future much differently than English does, and this is the first time I've heard of the mental image of life you describe. I like the logic behind it; hindsight is commonplace, while foresight is a rare gift.

Regarding the pages, I was not aware of that policy. I did not desire to hide the discussions, which are probably of little interest to other editors anyway, but merely to get rid of the pages; now that I see how the Wikipedia principle of transparency extends into the userspace, I'll simply keep them as archives.

Thank you for your trouble. Regards, Waltham, The Duke of 16:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Memphis Soul Music/Memphis soul article merger discussion

Thanks for your input. Can you add to the discussion about the proposed merger of the Memphis Soul Music and Memphis soul articles? Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music really isn't my forte. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Web services gateway

It looks like my withdrawal and subsequent tagging clashed with your deletion. I apologize for the mess, the rationale for withdrawing was that upon reflection I didn't see a clear advertising case, only a poorly sourced article in bad need of cleanup, something which can be fixed through other means. Sorry for the disruption. MLauba (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's an argument that we could eventually get to a good article; on the other hand, the promotional language for a particular product is the usual trigger to delete as "advertising", and I see that User:PMDrive1061, who does a lot of CSD work, deleted the article again one minute after I did for the same reason. I'll be happy to recreate the article in your user-space if you would like to work on it. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have mixed feelings about this, I try to be more careful about my tagging after you cautioned me on an early A3 case a couple of days ago. I try to approach CSD as a way to get another pair of (experienced) eyes on something which I see as too fishy for a PROD. I cannot entirely escape the feeling that User:PMDrive1061 simply re-deleted because of the edit clash between my issue tagging and your deletion immediately recreated the page. I would therefore defer to your judgement about the spammy nature (or lack thereof) of the article. In case you deem my doubts sufficient to give the article another chance, I'd appreciate a recreation under User:MLaubau/Sandbox2. In the meantime, I'll take the liberty to ping User:PMDrive1061 to this exchange for his views. MLauba (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the opportunity. :) I'm certainly not de facto against an article on the subject if it's written in a neutral manner; the one I deleted looked like a copyvio. Yes, by all means feel free to recreate an article under the title, one which fits the criteria for inclusion. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I restored and then moved the article to userspace (slightly different username, though, MLaubau ... is that also you?) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that's a simple typo, no user of that name exists. I boldly moved to my own userspace and tagged U2 on the redirect. Thanks for your cooperation on the whole matter. MLauba (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll clean it up. Let me know if I can help. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias

An Arbitration case in which you commented 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/Aitias/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/Aitias/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 22:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Lamb Studios Article

Hello Dank5. I am new to wiki so thanks for offering to help me. I now understand what was wrong with all of my articles. They were directory entries not encyclopedia entries. However, the final article that remains is this Angry Lamb Studios article. I have rewritten the entire thing, with a source, with a notable item under "Press". I am unsure if this is notable accoring to wiki guidelines. I was hoping you might be able to review it and let me know. Also, the article about Ty Fyffe to me seems just as eligible for speedy deletion as some of my earlier articles. Is this so? Why or why not? My feeling is that it has absolutely no sources. Is this a qualification for deletion? Thanks so much. Jsf8336 (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting a search hit on "angry lamb" in that new online magazine you listed for a ref. The vote at the WP:AfD is leaning strongly in favor of deletion for lack of references. Keep looking for articles that mention your studio. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam vs Notability

Dank55 - just a little curious about your comments on the db-spam CSD I placed on TheKoalition.com. You mention it's only spam if it's non-notable. Is that part of the policy? Because the way I read G11 there is no requirement for it to be non-notable. "Blatant advertising. Pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion."

Just wondering. Thanks. JCutter (talk) 03:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question that I don't have a good answer to yet, but I'm getting there. I spend a good part of the day deleting spam, so look at my deletion log. If an article is about something sold on late-night TV and the point seems to be to get people to buy or sign up, I typically won't think much about notability. It doesn't matter much to me if someone really does have the best herbal viagra on the market, sold in stores everywhere; it's not the right tone for Wikipedia. TheKoalition.com is just 3 short sentences, and articles that are intended to promote a product are typically much longer; I also know nothing about gaming, so I decided to hand it over to the guys who do the {{db-notability}} queue. I couldn't find anything in the first 50 ghits that suggested notability, which seemed like a bad sign. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - thanks. JCutter (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of email exchange concerning Whiskey Basin

Hi! I am actually the writer/copyright holder for the content on www.whiskeybasin.com/history.php. I posted the Whiskey Basin entry here, but it was deleted for copyright infringement. How can I get that reupped? [Name withheld]

First, make a post at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music saying "Here's some information from this website, does this band merit an article in Wikipedia?" There are 12 different things that band can do (such as charting) to merit an article. If they say yes, then read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Permission for how to deal with copyright problems. Happy editing. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio of Buddy wrapping

I just discovered that Buddy wrapping is a complete rip-off of this website. The article has been there for over two years as is, so I'm a bit surprised no one has ever noticed this. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 02:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. The {{copyvio}} tag you added keeps the page from being a legal problem, and the folks who monitor WP:CV will decide if there's any version they can revert to. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why Religions for Peace Page was deleted

I've created a page for the Religions for Peace Non-governmental organization; however, it was deleted, can you please help me understand why and how can i retrieve this page?

Thank You,

Gloria Decamps

Gloriadecamps (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gloria, certainly. I will re-create the page that was deleted at this link: User:Gloriadecamps/Sandbox. The page was deleted because it was a close copy of 4 copyrighted pages: http://www.wcrp.org/about/index, http://www.wcrp.org/about/history, http://www.wcrp.org/initiatives/global-youth-network and http://www.wcrp.org/initiatives/women/index. Wikipedia can't accept copyrighted material. One solution is to condense the material and re-write it in your own words, and see WP:FIRST for an idea of what we're looking for to avoid deletion. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article

Since you have deleted Neutrino Array Radio Calibration, can you please close its related AfD discussion? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this speedy deletion under (G12: copyright infringement of http://www.physics.ku.edu/facilities/rice/rice.html) as this is for cases where "where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving". It was clearly NOT all copyvio and could have been discussed as per WP:COPYVIO. Pontificalibus (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To meet both the letter and the spirit of U.S. copyright laws, we have to delete or hide copyright violations at about the same time that we find them ... but I don't have any preference how we hide them. I saw complete sentences that looked like copyvio all over that article, so I deleted, but I'll restore the article and delete most of the contents per your request; you all are welcome to continue to debate at the AfD what the final result should be. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"ITV Late News" / "The Late News"

Hi there Dank55,

There seems to be a little bit of a problem with the aforementioned articles: the British news programme in question is indeed called The Late News, and my moving of all content from the incorrectly-named ITV Late News article aimed to reflect this. I apologise for the way I went about it: I was wondering, if of course it is no trouble, could you rename the ITV Late News entry to become the The Late News? I hope this is no trouble.

Many regards, Nick (LBM)

LBM | ^{TALK TO ME} 00:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be able to do the move yourself, since I deleted the page that was in the way, but if there's still conflict, it might be best to try to get consensus first, either on the article talk page or at WP:Requested moves. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no conflict that I'm aware of - some months ago I wrote on the talk page of the article in question asking if anyone opposed me moving the page to its correct title. No-one responded so I gathered that it was not a problem. The problem was indeed that the article I wanted to move it to was already taken - I realise now that this is no longer the case as you have deleted that page; I will now move the article. Thanks, LBM | ^{TALK TO ME} 01:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secure-24

Just a note, you seem to have forgotten to check the article history on that one. Please be more careful in the future, it's quite pointless for me to go and review speedy taggings if other admins ignore my decisions ;-) Regards So Why 12:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do check histories; sorry, I missed that one. But on the subject, I don't see how this article is less promotional in tone than others you've deleted this morning. No reliable sources, and it begins: "Secure-24 (Secure-24, Inc) is a provider of managed hosting, disaster recovery and managed services for the enterprise-level, mission-critical applications of middle-market companies and large enterprise. Secure-24 provides critical application hosting and managed services to organizations that need to meet rigorous compliance metrics (i.e. SAS 70, HIPAA, Sarbanes-Oxley, GLB.) Services are provided to companies across all sectors, including financial, healthcare, government, manufacturing, chemical, internet retail, automotive supply and OEM. A deep knowledge of ERP systems and complex architectures combined with state-of-the-art data centers and infrastructure allow Secure-24 to deliver solutions that are highly available, scalable to accommodate evolving business needs, and meet the security requirements of today's demanding regulatory environment." What part of that can we keep? Which sentence isn't full of marketing slogans? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point was that I had declined it earlier and you deleted it, thus giving the impression that people could just retag until someone deletes it. As for the article itself, I think the first sentence could have been kept as non-promotional, cutting all the rest. I'm not fighting for it of course, I do not really care for the content. I just in general to be more careful with checking histories, no sense in multiple admins disagreeing and having to do the same work. Regards So Why 13:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, sorry. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I see now it was also tagged as a copyvio, and it was a word-for-word copyright violation. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry then. I read you deleted it for the same reason that I declined before, hence I was confused. But if it was a valid G12, you were more than correct to delete it. Ah well, confusion happens ;-) Have a nice rest of the day :-) Regards So Why 16:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You declined the A7 for Workstation Specialists, it's back as G11 ... your call. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not terribly important, but...

Would you mind taking care of some of the templates at Talk:Suicide? I was rearranging the archives into a box, and that has caused some problems in terms of section editing. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 01:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not good with templates, unless you want them deleted. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I didn't make myself clear enough. What I meant was rearranging the order of the templates on the talk page, because they're all stacked up on one side of the page and they create problems in section editing. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 02:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, for that, see WP:BUNCH. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a go at this. I added a banner shell to consolidate the 3 project banners, and removed the archive box because the archives are all linked in the {{talkheader}}. Also added a 'skip to TOC' template since the tags + todo list make for a lot to scroll through. I won't be offended if you want to change some or all of the templates back to the |small=yes versions, but I don't think it helps much since they end up taking exponentially more vertical space. Maralia (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, good job! --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 03:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I add {{ArticleHistory}} and project banners on a lot of articles, so I have a fair amount of experience in making talk page templates behave nicely :) Maralia (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for your help, Maralia. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camphill Svetlana deletion

I added a "hangon" some time ago and am in the process of rewriting. Do you mind if I create a new article removing the copyright violations? Thanks. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current article looks good, but make sure in the future not to reproduce whole sentences. We have to hide copyright violations at about the same time as we see them, whether there's a "hangon" tag or not. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of Left Behind Games

What is your justification of deleting a page dedicated to a public company, that although it has lost a fair amount of cash, still has more than 200 investors after it has successfully launched the first and most widely distributed Christian PC Video Game ever? They are supported by nearly every major ministry, from Focus on the Family to the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. And this past September, they posted their first profit. They are makers of some of the highest quality and best Christian PC games ever made. In view of the rise in Christian media, including Films, and Music in the past 15 years, it seems appropriate that this leading edge company would, appropriately, have it's own WikiPedia page. In view of the false mistatements made by the liberal media, please undelete the page...and contribute something, if you have something concrete and honest to add.JackInMurrieta (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The logs show it's been deleted 8 times by 5 different admins, so the odds are even if I wrote the article myself in something like its current form, it would get deleted as promotional. What you might want to do is make a post at the wikiproject for video games, and ask for advice. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YorkArts

Hello. You deleted my article for YorkArts, claiming there to have been copyright violations. I am the intern for YorkArts, and my boss requested that I create an article on wikipedia for the organization, and he permitted me to glean whatever I needed from their website, http://www.yorkarts.org. At the bottom of my article it included a reference section and listed the website as my reference. Is there anything I can do in creating a new page that would prevent it from being deleted but still using the material from their website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by YorkArts (talk • contribs) 16:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with some reading material: WP:Permission (for copyrighted material), WP:COI, and WP:ORG. Also, you'll need a new username; your current username violates our username policy because it represents a group that you're writing about. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC) tweaked links[reply]

Decline of db-spam on Anukul Gita

Thanks for taking the time to look at the article, you gave the existance of the article for 3.5 years as a reason for denying the speedy, I can't find any mention of a time limit on the WP:CSD page, is this a standard convention, or a personal rule you apply? TurningWork (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took this to AfD. I decline db-spam when a "lot" (whatever that means) of editors have looked at roughly the same article and no one thought to delete it, because it's not my place to overrule everyone else's judgment. I really don't know how this one got by everyone, and it seems likely that it will be deleted at AfD if it stays in its current form. Also, one more week after 3.5 years really doesn't make much difference. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'k thanks, wasn't complaining, just looking for clarification on what the guidelines were. TurningWork (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline of db-spam on International SOS

Why? How is this not BLATANT ADVERTISING? I don't see much substance other than giving details about a corporation. Looks like promotion to me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gb80 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burlodge

Upon review, my inclination is to leave it deleted. If you want to take it to AfD, I won't mind. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, taking it to AfD. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ExerciseTV

You declined the speedy on ExerciseTV because the creator wished that the {{db-author}} would be removed. Doesn't the article meet A7, though? Cunard (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I stick to G3 G1 through G12. That wasn't a G7. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. This company is notable, so I've expanded and sourced the article. Thanks for not deleting it! Cunard (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aneesh Chopra

Hi Dank, the content that was copied into this article was part of a Press Release put out by the Obama Administration. As a creation of the U.S. Government, it is public domain. There was no copyright violation. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willfjohnston (talk • contribs) 03:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the url for the federal source? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Press Release]

That works. I'll restore the article and add the proper template to show it's PD. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North East Chinese Basketball League

Confucius7 (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Confucius7 (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Dear Administrator: my name is Peter and I am trying to create the page North East Chinese Basketball League on wikipedia. The writing regarding the NECBL you see from http://udel.edu/stu-org/ccd/index.html is my writing since I was the founder for that organization, China Club of Delaware. If you ask the current president Wenxiao Li (allenli@udel.edu | 302 4196828 ) or the Previous President Quan Deng ( dengquan@udel.edu ) - they can all testify that the writing is mine, Peter Ran (peterran@udel.edu). I am the Founder of China Club and also Founder + Organizer of the NECBL . I can provide emails and phone numbers of all the team captains / participants in order to prove that the written material is mine. Kind regards, Peter Ran 267 455 5443 Confucius7 (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Confucius7 (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because it was a copy of http://udel.edu/stu-org/ccd/docs/NECBL.pdf. Please see WP:Permission for how to avoid the copyright problem. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding North East Chinese Basketball League; I have now managed to confirm the users OTRS email; the article is now tagged. I've largely rewritten it; full story in User talk:Confucius7. Cheers, Chzz ► 14:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Chzz, thanks. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delition of an article

Dear Dank 55 You have deleted the Nankali's Masticatory Force Systematization, which I wrote it. I wonder if you could let me know that what was wrong there? Kind regards, --Ali nankali (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a lot to add to the advice that you got on your talk page back in January and February. WP:COI is our guideline that covers an inventor writing about his own invention. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: CSD Request

Regarding this decline, I did not set ClueBot III correctly and it was sent to the wrong archive. So, can you please delete the page? --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 17:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I follow, done. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was only testing the differnece between MiszaBot and ClueBot; I perfer the first. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 17:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall Island (Ontario)

Just a question on Cornwall Island (Ontario). Was the CSD tag the right course of action to take or would there have been a better one to use? -WarthogDemon 18:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CSD#G12, "earlier versions without infringement should be retained." Best is to try first just reverting to a non-copyvio version if there is one. If that's reverted a couple of times, then I'll be happy to delete the page and restore only the non-copyvio versions. Thanks for asking. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unix merge

I've just seen that the new definition of the Unix command (ex : cron (Unix)) have been suppressed after my request of merging, to my mind it's abnormal. Moreover I've written in Cd (Unix) "db-histmerge cd" instead of "db-histmerge cd (command)", thank you for your services. JackPotte (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of current version is that the merge hasn't been finished (eg: Mv, it's enough urgent), and its heterogeneity : the page names are depending of chronology instead of a lexical place (eg: ls instead of ls (Unix) will engendered a conflict if the users would need to add another "ls" definition). JackPotte (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that sounds like something to discuss at WT:COMPUTING - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Bank Liga

The article is a pure copy of Montenegrin First League with some hoax content like changed the nation from Montenegro to Andolia. Matthew_hk t c 14:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the tag for db-nonsense, it excludes "hoaxes", and only includes articles "consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history." It's not db-nonsense, or any other speedy deletion category. WP:AfD should work. WP:Twinkle makes it easy to nominate an article for AfD, if you're not using some other tool. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tupelo Honey Cafe

I can understand why you brought this to AfD. My own thought on the matter is that decent reviews of a restaurant act toward notability just as they do for a film or a book. While we grant notability to fast food establishments based upon the press they generate in their marketing, they rarely get great reviews for quality of product. If a smaller one-of establishment makes a decent enough impression to be reviewed and rated, that speaks toward its own notability in my opinion. Places like that will rarely get in-depth news coverage... unless thay are also historical or the site of some major event. So for them, a good review by established restaurant critics such as Frommers, definitely works to show note. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks, and that's the direction the AfD is going. I'll decline similar db-spam deletions in the future. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If something has no reviews, no covergae, or no descernable notability, I would support a db-spam deletion. Luckily this one passed muster. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply List of Danish Governments

Thanks, but I can't merge the histories myself since I'm not an administrator (it is done by undeleting both pages at the same title). Could I ask you to have a try at that as well? Hemmingsen 16:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I misunderstood. I've restored the article; WP:SPLICE is the place to list articles for history merges. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. WP:SPLICE suggests using the template might be enough in simple cases, but I'll leave a note there, just be to sure. By the way, apologies for not noticing your talk page notice and replying in the wrong place. Hemmingsen 17:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. A merge requires an investigation to make sure no one could possibly have a problem with the merge, since they can be a massive pain to undo if the decision ever goes the other way. As long as there's no backlog at WP:SPLICE and there's always more to do than gets done with CSD work, I'd rather they do it; but if for some reason it doesn't get done, feel free to ask again. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Arbor Blues and Jazz Festival

(Apr 15) Also Ann Arbor Blues Festival. Couldn't determine who copied who, so moved to WP:CP. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperative Performance Improvement

(Moved to bottom of page) Dank55 you delted the Cooperative Performance Improvement article giving a simple definition of the article title. Yes I have published the definitions at cooperativeperformance.com, however, the training classes teaching the topic will not be conducted for at least a couple of months thus there are 3 people in the world that know about this topic. If wiki does not want the actual definition of something appearing to be as impotant to performance improvement as Demmings work was to Quality, what gives. Or is it better to simply have someone else who does not understand the topic to submit? Surely this would be a validity problem for Wiki?

Markdgrissom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markdgrissom (talk • contribs) 17:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant Wikipedia guidelines are WP:COI and WP:CORP. Please let me know if you have questions about what our guidelines mean. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved to bottom of page) Hey Dank55 you and Wikipedia are now officially notified you nor Wikipedia nor any representive of either have authorization to publish any aspects of works that fall within my copyrights. This is to avoid any quality issues with the information, definitions, understandings, or any other uninformed interpertation of the works. Dank55 if you or Wiki need to better understand what this means, feel free to contact me.

Markdgrissom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markdgrissom (talk • contribs) 17:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Dutch Shell initiatives

How is this not promotional? It basically says "look how great Shell is" - yes it's referenced, but so what? G11 says nothing about references nor does it speak to how many users have edited the article. – ukexpat (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the person who wrote this article runs the the main anti-Shell attack site, and wrote similar articles listing all the negatives I agree it is not DB spam material. It was not written by the company but by their most productive critic, perhaps with shades of damning with faint praise. In my view it should be AfDed as a POV fork but it is at least worth an AfD and not a speedy. However I also think some of the other similar negative articles done by the same guy Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell Royal Dutch Shell environmental issues Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns are also candidates. Incidentally Ukexpat, you are on the Schools Wikipedia short list of gold star editors, so hats off to you. [3] --BozMo talk 09:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion isn't an excuse for one admin to substitute their judgment for the judgment of the community, it's a necessary time-saving device for dealing with articles the community probably isn't interested in. There have been nontrivial edits by at least 6 editors to the article over the past week, and there's an active discussion on the article at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Johnadonovan_and_Royal_Dutch_Shell. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bane (comics)

Thanks, I could not find that on the cited web site. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was the last line on the page. Thanks for your tagging work. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChemAxon

HI - I worked on the page again, I think this is more suitable now. I have been trawling for business refertences but these are not so easy to find. We have very many sci article references but i dpon't think it is right to use these just to justify the citation rule. Lets see what bots do. Thanks again. Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.147.232 (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. Another editor tagged the article for "speedy" deletion, but I declined the tag. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Ogg

Speedy deletion of Morgan Ogg

A tag has been placed on Morgan Ogg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

db-copyvio: New version of article written, pending administrative approval at Morgan Ogg/Temp page. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article at Talk:Morgan Ogg/Temp still appears to be a copyright violation to me. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine - can you please delete both the original article and the temp page, the whole shebang. I really do not want to spend any more time on this matter. As the creator of the article(s) I request deletion under WP:G7. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Hi Dan, I'm new to Wikipedia. Thanks for taking an interest in my Ubikwiti article that got an A7. I use Ubikwiti software and came to know about them through secondary links (as Wikipedia says). Would appreciate it if you could take a look at the following links. They are secondary links that would support the Notability issue: Please let me know if this would suffice.

TMCNet (world’s largest technology and communication community) - [4]
Information week - [5]
CloudAve.com - [6]
eWeek (a Ziff-Davis publication) - [7]
Smashing Apps - [8]
Website Magazine - [9]
Venture Chronicles - [10]
1b LiveBusiness - [11]
Wealth Junkies - [12]
Creative Pro - [13]

Ubikwiti also appeared on Google and Yahoo news:

Google news - [14]
Yahoo news - [15]

Publiceyes (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask around. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No answer yet, I'm still asking around. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of the company or its products, and it is only two years old, so I also would question its notability. AFD might be a good test to verify the sources, etc. MBisanz ^talk 04:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 11:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Since you took some time out to correspond to me directly, I wanted to thank you with similar directness for your kindness and support on my RfA - the former more than the latter. It's gone through, so if you need an admin-person for anything, by all means give me a call any time! - Vianello (Talk) 02:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll do that! - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Dank55/Apr#Joint_Air_Delivery_Test_and_Evaluation_Unit

I agree with your reasoning that the article does not entirely fall under the non sufficient context guideline. Normally taken i would have just watch listed it, and checked back a few hours or maybe days later. Why i didn't do that this time? About 2 hours or so earlier an article with almost the same title was already created. I assume this article should have been a redirect to that article, but i have been unable to find that article again. My conclusion? Either the article was deleted (Meaning this article would be a candidate as well), or it should have bern a redirect to that page. Seeing that the chances were low this article would develop further then the initial line, i decided to just be lazy and tag it, rather then keep searching. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've been doing a lot of good tagging work, thanks for your work. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hider in the House

Probably no bad thing that it was deleted, but I can't help feeling that maybe not all the content was copied from the URL mentioned and there was some salvageable content. Secondly, it was quite an old page, and we should consider that the site linked was in fact a fork of Wikipedia. Anyhow, would you mind looking into it a little? My memory of when I looked at the page a few weeks back may be flawed, and, being a non-administrator, I can't check. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime someone wants to look at or work on a db-copyvio, I'm happy to undelete and replace the db-copyvio with copyvio, which will obscure the text but allow you to work on anything in the history. Thanks for having a look. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Babcock

While I was in the middle of creating my page about Ryan Babcock, you deleted it for reason A7. If I were able to complete the page, you would have realized that Mr. Babcock is an influential member of the federal courts in Georgia, as a 6 year, and current, judicial clerk to the Honorable Anthony A. Alaimo, Federal District Judge. Mr. Babcock is also a published author, having published "Republican Party of Minnesota v. Kelly: Regulating Judicial Speech in State Elections," 71 U. Cin. L. Rev. 721, 723 (2002). He is also active in the Brunswick Bar Association, and the Manna House, a well-known food kitchen in Brunswick, Georgia.

I find it unwarranted to conclude that Mr. Babcock is not of enough importance or significance to include on Wikipedia. Please explain your decision.

Scott Grubman, Esq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgrubman (talk • contribs) 19:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FIRST for what we're looking for in your first article. I'll recreate the article at User:Sgrubman/Sandbox to allow you to continue working on it until it's ready for an article. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: CSD U1

I've moved them to the same pages but without the trailing "/" (messed up my configuration for the bot ^_^'), so no history is being deleted. Please axe them as G6 ShakingSpirit^talk 19:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You betcha. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Megaholdings

I don't get it. Why did you delete Megaholdings page. There are dozens of MLM companies in Wikipedia, with the same situation. This company has over 500,000 customers around the world and it sells through people so, they want to know what is this company about. What is different about other MLM companies (like Agel)?

I said in the edit summary: no hits in Google news archives, no hits in Google scholar. I just did a search in Google books; no hits there either. I'm not saying your company isn't important; I'm saying your company doesn't meet the notability requirements in WP:CORP, unless you have references that weren't in the article and that those Google searches didn't pick up. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Airways

I made an entry for Cyclone Airways which you tagged for deletion. The Article is significant because it established information about the airline vis-a-vis with other airlines of the Philippines.

Researchers about airlines in the Philippines may not know until they browse the wikipedia for information. Removing the article is like denying them the information about local airlines such as Cyclone Airways which have limited information available on cyberspace. Information could be linked to their website at www.cycloneairways.com.

bedcrawl (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been deleted by 3 different admins recently because we can't find any hits or references that would allow us to keep it under our guideline for notability of companies, WP:CORP. Read that, and give me some references that would establish that level of notability. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

L'OCCITANE Foundation

You removed the {{db-ad}} tag from this article, noting that "the author seems willing to work with us". However, the author has been blocked for his promotional username, so it seems unlikely that he'll be able to improve this article. However, now that speed and prod have been declined, I suspect it will take an AFD to remove this article, or adoption by another editor to improve it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Dank55/Apr#Holding_Pen. I was the one who blocked their username, just now, and I left a nice message saying that I'm temporarily declining the speedy to give them a few days to read WP:FIRST and work on the article. I'm also about to notify WP:FRANCE. I feel that it's appropriate to set conditions and take some time to see what direction the article is going before I act; this was discussed in the recent "it's not necessarily speedy" thread at WT:CSD. I also don't like to delete something speedily unless I'm pretty sure that there are no or few Wikipedians who would be interested in working on the article. I'm pretty sure from experience that no one wants to improve a sales pitch for herbal viagra. But a French charitable foundation with an annual budget of 5M euros a year? I can't be sure; someone might want to improve that article. We'll know in a few days. Also, the article creator removed any mention of contacting their company as soon as the article was tagged, and working with us is a good sign. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I come across here from WPFrance. The article can be salvageable with time and reliable sources if there is any. (See edit history of L'Occitane. How mess it was!).--Caspian blue 14:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of You Crate

Hello Dank55. I am writing to challenge the deletion of You Crate based on your decision of it being "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.rlcarriers.com/history.asp") At the bottom of the page "http://www.rlcarriers.com/history.asp" we have noted that we have released the content of the page under the GFDL ("The text content of this page, titled "The R+L History" (http://www.rlcarriers.com/history.asp), is provided under the terms contained in the GNU Free Documentation License.") I believe that this addresses the first terms in the G12 that it is released under a free license ("Text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving.") I respect your advice and I would like to get this page back to "live" as soon as possible. Thanks for your time. TruckTech (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]