User talk:Dondegroovily/archive 2010

User talk:Dondegroovily/archivetable

Afd for Security Tool

Per your !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Security Tool, would you care to help me find some sources that pass WP:RS that can be used to establish WP:Notability? I have had a good look but can't find any but would be happy to change my vote if you can find some sources. Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Cactus cultivation

Hi Donde, I made some comments on the section you added to the cactus article on the talk page. Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uptown (film)

I have been spending some time improving the style, tone, and sourcing for Uptown (film).[1] As it was only recently released on DVD, I think we might reasonably expect more coverage in the next few weeks. Though I fully expect the nominator to adamantly disagree, I ask that you revisit the improved article to see if it might at least now be worth sending to incubation. Thank you, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Signature Sep 20 2010

D O N D E groovily Talk to me

Hamilton Public Library

I disagree with your name change on this article. Please see the Talk page on the Hamilton_Library_(Ontario) article to discuss before I change it back.--GGG65 (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Shinboners listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shinboners. Since you had some involvement with the Shinboners redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Your signature

Hi Donde,

I note that your signature has <font size="4">, which disrupts the reading flow by increasing the spacing between lines. Please see Wikipedia:Signatures#Appearance and color for guidance on what is acceptable in signatures. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed it, hopefully what you see right after this sentence complies. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks good :) Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD for Rugby World XV

Hi, can you withdraw the AfD for Rugby World XV so we can redirect it to World XV. It's such a non issue at this point that if I hadn't already voted, I'd just do it myself.

For some background, the World XV of rugby is analogous to the World XI of Football (Soccer). It is a real concept, but the team in question generally doesn't play as a team. It's a well known method of honoring the best player in each position of all time, or of a specific time.

The content does not need to be carried over, it's a content fork and World XV has much more information.

Feel free to post at my user talk with questions. Sven Manguard Talk 16:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure they're the same thing? The Rugby World XV article says it's hypothetical, but the World XV lists a series of real teams. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I just posted the answer at the AfD. For your convenience:
They are the same thing. A World XV is an honorary recognition that each player in the team is the best in the world in that particular position. Most are fan lists, but some teams are actually assembled temporarily for showcase games.
Hope this helps Sven Manguard Talk 04:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

RE: William

You seem to WP:ABF. And also you seem to be engaging in WP:NPA. The person in question was not notable by guidelines, and therefore I used CSD. I did not engage in any attacks on the user who created it. So don't use WP:BITE

Many Regards, Yousou (report) 09:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC) WP:CSD isn't a threat. Yousou (report) 14:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Grey box (container)

The article Grey box (container) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

same rational as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Box (container)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up

I believe this use of the globalize template is incorrect. "Fruit of a poisonous tree" is a quote from a specific and influential Fourth Amendment case, and as such is only relevant in the U.S. The evil of ethnocentrism, which this template is designed to avoid, would only be furthered if anything that resembles this concept in foreign legal systems were collected into this article. Not every legal article needs 200 sections or a "globalize" template. Savidan 01:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

All I was thinking of was linking to the similar term for other countries. Also, if this is very common worldwide, it might make sense to have a single title with a generic title and redirect this term. Even with its own article, it should at least link to a more general worldwide treatment. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD

I've noticed you've been nominating a lot of articles on fictional elements. While I agree that the majority of these articles don't deserve a separate article, why not just merge them into the main article instead of going through the entire deletion process?--hkr Laozi speak 08:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I looked at the content on some of these and concluded that if a merged it, it quite likely would be deleted as trivia. Rather than merge something only to have someone delete it anyway, I figure why not skip a step and delete it in the first step? BTW, I assume you're referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deathwand, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Field of Arbol and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Granfalloon. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree, I think that even if the merged content is deleted, the entry will still exist as a redirect, which is better than a redlink. However, I do see your point.--hkr Laozi speak 12:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

RM requests

If you proposal is to delete or replace the target page, it is not a multi move request. Nominating it this way makes more work for the editor who closes the discussion. It is only a multi move if you are proposing that the material at the proposed target is also moved. Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Aletrishe Nietrà

I've proded the article as you have removed my speedy deletion tag. I guess the next step would be to take it to AFD. Just out of curiosity, could you explain to me why you don't think this qualifies as a speedy? --Banana (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've answered on the article talk page to try and keep the discussion together. --Banana (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Mickey

Don't want the username thanks, just pointing out the fact that the user had not edited at all recently and probably would never edit again. I'm new, don't know the exact regulations about this. Sorry.-Zyrath (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Note: This is in regards to User:Mickey

Request board

I was looking at the comment you placed, but have some questions for you. Are you looking for a discussion about that particular article or about the general standards of A7? If you're talking about the general criteria, then you could pose a question at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion which is pretty heavily traveled and likely wouldn't need an RfC (at least initially) to get some good feedback. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Yeah, the request board is there pretty much because the process can be hard to understand, so that other editors (like me) can try and help figure out the best way to get your question answered. If you'd like I can go ahead and start a discussion at WT:CSD about the policy in general to see what the general interpretation of A7 is as it applies to authors. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Please do so, and please provide a link so I can notify another editor on this matter. Makes me think your better off without the Request board. If not for that, I probably would have posted to the CSD talk page. I thought that the RfD was something inherently different than just a referral to a talk page. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Marches

See Talk:Border country where it was previously discussed. I suggest that if you want to merge the two then you discuss it on the talk page of Scottish Marches. -- PBS (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh and BTW the comment in the edit history "Merging in Border country and Scottish Marches" is probably not sufficient to meet the requirements of Terms of use see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia as you did not provide links to the pages from which you copied the information. It would probably have been better to have copied the information in two distinct sessions so it was clear from with page the text originated. -- PBS (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I read the talk page first and saw a clear consensus to merge. Four different users explicitly endorsed the merge, one explicitly suggesting a redirect, and you were the only one opposed. Thus, I did this in accordance to the talk page, so don't go tell me I'm violating consensus.

As you were clearly acting against the consensus here, I'm restoring the redirect. Please don't turn it back into an article unless it doesn't duplicate Anglo-Scottish Border.

BTW, I think you're right about the merge description. I probably should have merged them as separate edits. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have on the talk page of the article Talk:Scottish Marches. -- PBS (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Callahan, Ph.D

Thank you for cleaning up the article for Daniel Callahan, Ph.D! I had most of the information down, I just did not do a very good job of sorting it all out. Remember, a photo of Daniel Callahan is requested to be posted on this article. Thanks again! MetaCow (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and the help. I`m new to Wikipedia, so this is all news to me. MetaCow (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven

You have nominated The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven for deletion in AfD. However, the link takes us to a small section in the WP article about Matteo Ricci. Is that the correct link? Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 09:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD is here. Although, it now appears that you're there. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 22:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Please do not create attack pages as you did at Malcolm Warner. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Watch the personal attacks. The edit summary [3] is highly inappropriate. Cind.amuse 06:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Your right, that was inappropriate, but it's incivility, not an attack page. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

User:KrakatoaKatie/CSD/Nathanial Bar-Jonah

You know, Nathaniel Bar-Jonah was a real person, and he was in fact convicted of murder and numerous other crimes. He's also dead. It's obviously supposed to be an admin exercise. I removed the attack template, although KrakatoaKatie seems to have deleted it of her own accord; although I understand your reaction, it's good to check before you accuse someone of creating an attack page. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why change to PROD?

On Calamity (band), you changed speedy to prod. Why? (I am watching this page, so please reply here.) — Timneu22 · talk 10:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering that some songs have charted (32 on Billboard independent), lots of sources, radio broadcasts, all of these put this outside the scope of speedy delete. Also, clearly you felt there was enough here to take it a step further and go to AfD - since AfD is generally for articles that have a reasonable chance of being kept. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert L. Rooks

Hello, please could you comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert L. Rooks, saying why you think the article should be deleted?--BelovedFreak 11:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As it appears that you do not believe the article should be deleted (and nobody else has advanced a reason why it should be), I've closed the discussion as a speedy keep. If you (or anyone else) do believe the article should be deleted, it may be renominated as long as that reason is detailed on the AfD page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Your comment was explicitly that you thought the subject of the article deserved an article. In anyone's book that's not a valid reason to delete an article (WP:SK explicitly allows discussions to be speedily kept where the nominator is not advocating deletion). Also, AfD is not a requests for comment about an article, nor a place to solicit help for improving it - we have the WP:RFC process, talk pages and various wikiprojects and collaborations for that. Since I closed the AfD, things have moved on. Another user discovered that it was a copy and paste move of an old version of Robert Rooks and that article had been overwritten by one about the music producer. The title Robert L. Rooks has been redirected to point at Robert Rooks, which is back to being about the veterinarian. I don't know whether we currently have an article about the music producer or not now. If you do think that the veterinarian's article should be deleted, then renominate it explaining clearly why you think it should be deleted. If you don't want it deleted, then don't nominate it for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)