User talk:Pan Dan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
If you leave me a message here I will generally respond here. If I left a message on your talk page I will watch that page for your response.



Welcome!

Hello, Pan Dan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Huon 21:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Speedy Deletion of articles

Hi Pan Dan, I see you have listed three articles about deaths in the Middle East onflict for speedy deletion. In each case you claimed the AfD debate on Rania Siam as precedent for speedy deleting these articles. I'm afraid you cannot use that precedent to suggest speedy deletion of these articles. They need to be debated in another AfD. It may make sense to open a single AfD on all three articles and reference the Rania Siam AfD although you may still get requests for separate AfDs as these are separate articles on separate incidents. Thanks, Gwernol 14:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The admin's close was pretty straightforward: "The result was Delete this article. The others mentioned below will have to be either group-nominated or CSD'ed individually to be deleted in line with policy and not to appear arbitrary" (my emphasis). And there seemed to be a consensus in the discussion that all 3 articles should be CSD'ed. Pan Dan 14:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stargate characters

Listen Pan Dan, I've just read the discussion about the deletion of the articles about the main characters of Stargate Atlantis. I feel I've got to tell you this: I am not a frequent user/editor on wikipedia. I just arrive here and there when I need some information about a subject and then see if I can edit something. I read your arguments pro deletion of these articles. However, the majority wishes to keep it. Just accept it (and now comes my point) Just don't feel angry about it; I left the dutch wikipedia for the same reason. A simple disagrement, in a few hours it turns in a major fight between two radical opponents: neither of you will give in. It soon became very rude name-calling. I felt betrayed and I left the project and I admit, I never regretted it. The only advice I can give you is from one of your opponents in this case (user rootology): there's another 1,500,000 pages you can busy yourself on. He's right and no matter how angry you are, just leave them and don't come back to the discussion. It's not worth it... Ramses II 21:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

First Ramses, I really appreciate your comments. You're very kind.
I should say, though, that I'm not angry, and I'm not angry at my opponents in this debate. I'm sure they're fine people. We're just having a disagreement, and I'm actually having fun sparring. It's probably not so fun for my opponents, but I really am just trying to get something done that I believe will make WP more like a true encyclopedia.
As far as the 1,500,000 other pages, yes, I'm busying myself with those too, requesting some for deletion, suggesting mergers, and making substantive contributions. With respect to this deletion, ya can't win 'em all, and I probably won't win this one. But I requested it in good faith, I still believe it should be deleted, and I'll keep on debating until the admin closes.
Thanks again for your comments, and I hope you keep on contributing to WP! Pan Dan 00:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RND Automation & Engineering

Some references have been added to the article RND Automation & Engineering in an effort to demonstrate notability. The article now seems to have a neutral point of view, even though it was originally created by thw company's president. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RND Automation & Engineering. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to that, but I am wondering if you intended to leave this message on the nominator's talk page? You may be confusing me with the nominator. Pan Dan 15:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bushisms

I'm not exactly sure that Liberals read them and "seethe" so much as they just wonder what on earth is going on in the man's head. But then again, I'm not an American, so I could well be wrong. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 01:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't mind me, I was just poking fun at liberals. I love them anyway (just not their political ideas). Pan Dan 01:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
's all good. I wasn't exactly zapping you either, just making a comment. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 02:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fyi

Regarding your user page image, per Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy: "Fair use images should be used only in the article namespace.". — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I will remove it pronto. Pan Dan 11:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iman Darweesh Al Hams

You have misunderstood the nature of AfD. It is not a tally of votes. It is an evaluation of a debate, and the strength of argument in that debate. I have therefore taken care to note in my conclusion certain aspects of that debate and how I have evaluated them, in particular the deletes based on a POV fork argument. I see no evidence that this is a POV fork, as there is no view in the other smaller mention to fork from — it is just a synopsis of the facts, while this article is simply a more detailed exposition of those facts. This is a standard format. The argument "If we dedicate a page to one dead person killed in war, we'll be dedicating a lot of pages to dead people" is a non sequitar and fails also to address the elements of this particular article. These two points in themselves account for five deletes and fail to convince.

"Practically every Palestinian civilian killed by the IDF qualifies as 'notable' because there's always a "discussion" has led the user to a conclusion that we cannot therefore have lots of articles to cover all these people. It is equally feasible to advance the argument that in fact we should have lots of articles on all these people, so it does not in itself advance the case for deleting this particular article. Moreover, it does not deal with argument that the death of this civilian stood out from the deaths of others.

There has been no attempt either to address the international mentions made by, for example, the BBC, The Guardian, CNN and New York Times.

I did not miss the italicised delete. Also, before I came to a conclusion, I took into account all the points you have just made.

You are a newly-registered user. I suggest, after reading the comments above on this page, that you ease up a little, and get more familiar with wiki conventions. You have made this comment about me: "your close improperly imposes your own view of the these issues instead of following the consensus". This is a blatant disregard of WP:AGF and is also a personal attack on my integrity, unless you have evidence that I have indeed imposed my "own view of these issues". I think this would be very hard to establish, as I don't recall every participating in an article on this topic previously. I have already pointed out that you have misunderstood the nature of consensus for a start.

Tyrenius 20:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing that I have not imposed my "own view of these issues". It is not a question of "not every AfD is a tally of votes". No AfD is a tally of votes. An AfD is the sum of the debate. It is no good repeating the figure of 3 to 1. That doesn't prove anything. It is no good saying that experienced editors were involved. That in itself is not sufficient. They still have to present compelling arguments.
As I have stated already, this is not a fork, POV or otherwise, because there is no article on this subject for this to be a fork of. It is an expansion of a one paragraph summary: that is very different to a fork.
You state in your nom that compared with the other two similar articles, "this article is much more extensive, as there was an IDF investigation into this clearly tragic death". You also state, "The article's coverage, and the references, are really about the incident of Iman's death and the subsequent investigation, not about Iman herself." These are arguments for keeping the article, and, if anything, for renaming it, and not for deleting the contents. Arguments that it fails WP:BIO are irrelevant, since, as you have pointed out, it is not a BIO. It is an analysis of an event. The current title is a convenience, and one that is adopted in other articles on occasion for the same reasons.
The nom was predicated on the wrong grounds. Nevertheless, had the debate revealed anyway that this was a trivial event of no widespread interest, I would have still considered deletion to be the right option. The debate did not reveal that. I made an evaluation of the discussion with my best judgement, which is that currently there is no consensus.
Tyrenius 22:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You might like to note the admin's conclusion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finger Lakes Christian School, using the same line of reasoning that I applied. I didn't say tallies were non-important, but they are not in themselves decisive. I took into account the tally, but I also took into account the quality of the arguments that produced that tally, and evaluated the tally in the light of them. If opinions one way or the other are based on an improper reason, then they are reduced in weight or even discounted. It doesn't matter how many editors make the same conclusion, if that conclusion is not valid, and in my judgement that was the case with the deletes, to such an extent that I think an overall straight keep would be justified. However, I held back from that. An admin makes the final conclusion in an AfD by making an informed jugement. You can say they "impose their conclusions" if you wish, but those are not (or at least should not be) arbitrary, but based on sound judgement, bearing all the factors in mind. Tyrenius 00:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Following your request, and in the light of our subsequent discussion, as well as wishing to show good will myself towards collegiality, I am willing to accept that you did not intend your remarks to be an attack on me, nor did you wish to imply I had ulterior motives, but you were questioning the process, which it seemed to you had not been followed (for whatever reason).
My example is a very clear comparison, because the tally is obviously one conclusion (no consensus, defaulting to keep), wherease the closing admin's decision was to delete, clearly in the face of the numerical tally. This happened to be an example I noticed on the same list, but you will be able to find others if you look through the archives. This is because the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion says:
Please also note that closing admins are expected and required to exercise their judgment in order to make sure that the decision complies with the spirit of all Wikipedia policy and with the project goal.
It was my judgement that I did not have any option but to reach the conclusion I did, for reasons I have explained. It was not a personal preference.
You have the option of asking a deletion review if you feel the procedure has not been correctly carried out. I would contest this strongly. I think it would be in wikipedia's interest for you to work with other editors on this article to ensure that it is written to the highest standard, and wait, say, a month. Should you then still feel wikipedia is a better encyclopedia without this article than with it, you can certainly quote my endorsement for seeking community consensus with another AfD. I would also be quite happy to advise on possible reasons for deletion, which would be in accord with policy.
Tyrenius 20:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your question from 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

(copy-paste from Random House Webster's)

in-fra-struc-ture  n. 
 1.  the basic, underlying framework or 
     features of a system or organization.
 2.  the fundamental facilities serving a 
     country, city, or area, as 
     transportation and communication 
     systems, power plants, and roads.

thus residential buildings can't qualify as infrastructure. as for the question: yea, i guess i could have done that... Rami R 15:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Pan Dan 15:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Delete per WP:WEB"

I'm not sure why you're asking me why that is vague. WP:WEB is a document with a lot of criteria, some negative (i.e. articles which satisfy a certain set of constraints should be deleted) and some positive (articles which satisfy a certain set of constraints should be retained). You didn't specify which you thought it was. Did you think it was supposed to be deleted because it was an advertisement? Did you think it didn't satisfy the criteria for notability? Did you think it was a web directory or part of a web directory? Etc., etc. From the message you left on my talk page subsequently, I'm assuming you meant that it did not satisfy the notability criteria on WP:WEB. Ok, if so, fair enough. In that case, I disagree, as did other editors who claim it is notable.

Nowhere did anyone say "This article should be deleted because of X", where X was an explicit and checkable thing. Like I said, your stated reason for deletion was the only one there which is even arguably valid, and it didn't state with any explicitness what you meant, it just referred to a complicated policy. How was another editor supposed to read your comment, or the nom's comment, and present evidence refuting it and arguing for this article's retention?

Note, however, that I didn't close it as a "keep", because the evidence to keep the article was pretty weak in that AfD also. But the burden lies on those advocating deletion in an AfD, and I don't think anyone put forward a compelling reason to delete. Hope this helps, -- Deville (Talk) 21:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guineas

Restored. Thanks for the note. :) NCurse work 19:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harpo, Groucho, Arthur Marx

Nicely done. Thanks for the disambiguation. LorenzoPerosi1898 00:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Actually I like your title Arthur Marx (writer) better than the awkward Arthur Marx (writer, tennis), but I was too lazy to redirect in the reverse direction which would have required a merge. Feel free to do so if you agree. Pan Dan 00:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Butterley Tunnel

Dear Pan Dan

I have added citations and images to this article and expanded the text considerably, would you please re-visit the page and perhaps consider changing you vote to Keep. If nothing else I believe you will see that I am making an effort.

Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon Martin Cordon 21:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Pan Dan

Thank you for reviewing the Butterley Tunnel page.

There are seven British canal tunnels with their own page in Wikipedia. Only two of these tunnels are longer. According to Wikipedia itself, if this canal were repaired, and that is the plan, it would be the ninth longest navigable canal tunnel in the world. There are no British Canal tunnels which also have an underground wharf to load coal directly from an adjacent coalmine into barges within the tunnel. This tunnel is unique in this respect in Britain (citation already exists). It is possible that this makes it unique in the world. What does a structure need to be considered notable?

PS. This Deletion discussion has improved my editing style immensely, your criticism especially has forced me to improve. Thank you for that.

Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon Martin Cordon 22:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Pan Dan

Thank you for your reply. I do understand what you are saying. It is possible that I could find many newspapers dated 1794 which published legthy, prosaic articles about the tunnel. I think that Butterley Tunnel is a victim of the out of site out of mind scenario. I understand that the information will be kept and not wasted and that its position within the Cromford Canal page will generate interest and perhaps lead its re-birth as a separate article. My only problem is that other pages which refer to this tunnel can't get to its information just by clicking on a link. If this can, indeed be overcome I have no objection at all.

PS. In wikipedias "List of Tunnels in the United Kingdom" page. 48 tunnels are listed with there own page. Most of these tunnels are smaller, less unique, younger and have poorer articles written about them than Butterley Tunnel. I feel abused.

Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon Martin Cordon 01:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Pan Dan

Thank you for the Linking tip. Yes there are books available. I have some myself and there are others available from Amazon and also directly from the web site of the "Friends of the Cromford Canal". There web page has a link on the Butterley Canal Page. The books I know about are "The Cromford Canal" by Hugh Potter, "Promotion of the Cromford Canal Act of 1789 : A Study in Canal Engineering" by R.B. Schofield, "Nottingham's Lost Canal" by Bernard Chell, "A Walker's Guide to the Cromford Canal" by The Friends of Cromford Canal and the Original act of Parliament for the canal is available from The Friends of Cromford Canal. I suspect that books about Benjamin Outram and Wiliam Jessop, the Canal's Engineers will also contain information.

I intend to add the books to the Further Reading section and also cite them as further information is gleaned from them.

PS. Sorry about the recurrent "PS" additions. I always think of something else to add afterwards. In this case, I urge you not to delete the offending tunnel articles. Give me a chance to re-vitalise them. I will make this my first task after the Butterley Tunnl debacle is over.

Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon Martin Cordon 18:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Pan Dan

Despite the fact that you voted Merge in this articles AfD debate, your crtiscism was positive and helpful as were your direct contributions to the article. I thank you in return.

Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon Martin Cordon 18:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Cheese

Your recent edit to Cheese (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 18:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. I thought I was reverting vandalism but it turns out I was reverting anti-vandalism. I guess I read the diff backwards for some reason. My apologies. Pan Dan 18:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mooney Family

I completely understand where you are coming from but I also think there are other arguments in favor of this type of information. In terms of relevance I would have to argue that there is a broad desire for this type of information coupled with a lack of availability (at least free or in one place). I would argue that an article on the evolution, genetics and origin or a family with millions of potential descendants is much more desirable and relevant than an article on the aardvark, bushims or cheese, but hey those are interesting too in their own way. But I know my place and I've got no weight here on Wikipedia so I'll leave it at that and let the big boys argue about it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sweetmoose6 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Stargate Atlantis Question

you're definitely wrong about the Israel-HA war, but laying that aside. Is the Return Part 1 the last episode of Atlantis that's out there in America and England for a while? that is is no episode guides, transcripts- nothing further. I never understand what's going on with those shows. I quit watching them for a while, and then when I get interested the season runs out. Take Care. Will314159 03:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? wha? Are you confusing me with someone else? I did just make a partial revert of your edit and added a ref to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, but I'm not a Stargate Atlantis fan, in fact as a newbie a while back I stupidly suggested deleting some SGA articles! :-) Pan Dan 04:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD for page 'Hipster (clothing)'

Hi, I saw your AfD for my page on 'Hipster (clothing)' which was, you were quite correct, a dictionary entry rather than an encyclopedia entry. I was in the process of researching to improve it when I found another Wiki article Low-rise jeans which was much more appropriate (I should have found it when checking the first time) and so have changed my page to redirect to that. Thanks for pointing out the inadequacy of my original page, all part of my newbie learning process --Mortice 22:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well done. Welcome newbie, and thank you for contributing! Pan Dan 22:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nassau Street

References are personal observation. I went to Pace University on Nassau Street for my MBA in the seventies. I also read the book mentioned and bought stamps from the stores. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GCW50 (talk • contribs).

No my friend, on Wikipedia references are not personal observations. See WP:OR, in particular "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." Since nobody has any way of verifying who you are or how you know what you know, references are essential. You can help build Wikipedia by finding references for the information you provided in Nassau Street. Pan Dan 18:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orb (Software) and Orb

Why did you delete the link to this article from Orb calling it spam? How can you call it spam when it's the first match returned by Google when you search for Orb? It's not because you don't know something that it's spam! Orb is a well known streaming software (as you could tell if you had taken the time to read my article and references) and even if you have no use for it, you can't deny that the first match in google for a word as common as orb is something that deserves its entry in the Orb wikipedia article!

One more thing, putting a speedy on the article I spent hours to write without notifying me is really rude. Thanksfully an admin saw fit to remove the tag. Now I'd like you to open your mind and rethink your position, again google is your friend to find out what is spam and what is not. Cheers,--Webdude0 17:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

My deepest and humblest apologies. I was confusing your material with spammy stuff another person has been repeatedly trying to get onto Wikipedia over the past week. Pan Dan 01:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Apologies accepted. Cheers,--Webdude0 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cable 13

Pan Dan,

If Cable 13 is not notable, then none of the student organizations listed are notable. I don't understand what you want us to do.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.3.75.45 (talk • contribs).

Please see my responses to your edit summaries at Talk:Duke Union Community Television. If you still have questions, post them at that page. Thanks, Pan Dan 19:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Deletion of Regnum Online

Hi Pan Dan, I see you have marked my newly created article for speedy deletion, saying it talks about a web site, forum, podcast, etc, when in fact it is about a game. I would appreciate if you could justify further why this article needs to be deleted, and that before inserting a deletion notice you would tell why it should be deleted in the discussion page.

I would greatly appreciate a quick response.Jcpetruzza 01:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have responded at Talk:Regnum Online. For your convenience, here's a paste: Pan Dan 14:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about a website, blog, online forum, podcast or similar web that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. It is about an online game. The fact that the game is not as massive and known as other games of the genre does not mean it is less important to people who read Wikipedia, and it definitely not means it should be deleted. [Jcpetruzza]

This article qualifies for speedy deletion because it is about "web content" and it "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject" (see {{db-web}}). Pan Dan 14:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Plus, before inserting a speedy deletion notice, it should be discussed here Jcpetruzza 02:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, I really don't think that's policy. Wikipedia gets bombarded with tons of inappropriate articles, which is why we have the speedy deletion procedure. And speedy means speedy -- we want to get rid of it as soon as possible with as little headache as possible. When you create an article in the future, please say why the subject you're writing about is notable or show it's notable by providing some outside sources that have written about it. Pan Dan 14:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Regnum_Online"

Thanks for all your comments, I have learned quite much! I'm posting a response on my talk page, but in case you don't watch it anymore: Thanks! Jcpetruzza 14:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Deletion of John Norris (MTV News reporter)

Every other current MTV News reporter, save one, has a Wikipedia page. John Norris (MTV News reporter) has been on a major television channel for almost 20 years now. Maybe it needs a biographical stub tag (where do I find the code for that?), but it seems overly zealous to flag the article for deletion. Please elaborate on why you disagree. Josephgrossberg 21:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Just to clarify, I didn't tag the article for deletion (speedy or otherwise) (because it asserts some notability, so can't be speedily deleted under policy). I did tag it for notability, because there's no sign he is notable enough to pass WP:BIO. I also tagged it for references, because most of the article was not sourced. I see you've now added the IMDB ref but much of the article is still not sourced. Now, the best way to show he passes WP:BIO, and to expand the article, is to find some reliable (non-trivial) publications whose source is independent of the guy. (I did a quick, but certainly not thorough, search myself.) If sources can't be found, then the article will probably be marked for deletion. As for the stub tag, I'm not sure where to find that myself, but I'll look for it. Pan Dan 01:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I see you or someone else has already added the TV-stub template. I added the bio-stub template for good measure. Pan Dan 01:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graceful exit

Just letting you know, I tried explaing in the edit summary that it's okay to respond when I tweeked the comment, but somebody else made another comment so you probably didn't see the comment. Wasn't trying to fool you. Goodnight. --Oakshade 03:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I didn't think you were trying to fool me. Pan Dan 12:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FS1037C

I suggest reading Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Federal Standard 1037C clean up and its talk page. There is a plan that several editors have come up with for dealing with these articles. Uncle G 15:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Pan Dan 14:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] RE: JORDAN

I am being serious with this change. If this is a serious change, then why should it be stopped? If you asked 100 people in the UK what they thought Jordan meant, you will get more linking to Katie Price than to the Middle Eastern country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.7.102 (talk • contribs).

Whether this is true or not (I would guess it heavily depends on what kind of people you ask) Jordan aka Katie Price is virtually unknown outside of the UK, so, since wikipedia.org is international, a primary redirect to the Middle Eastern country is the way to go. --Pushit 15:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning the William L. Bonner article

Please reply on the talk page for William L. Bonner. I have looked again at the notability criteria, but I feel a discussion would help us understand each other in a deeper way. --Thoscsii 20:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don Herr

Regarding the refs used for Indy 500 driver profiles: it's not that it's hard to do ... it's just that there are already literally HUNDREDS of articles which are in a similar state. If you're gonna tag the one article, you need to tag literally HUNDREDS of like articles. In addition, this information is available from many, many sites and many, many books. It's almost "common knowledge", at least to the racing community.--Mycroft.Holmes 04:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing is not optional, even if you consider it common knowledge. And you're right, there are gazillions of unreferenced articles at Wikipedia -- that's exactly why we have to deal with them one at a time. That's the only way to do it. Since I see you are adding many articles, I ask you to start making a habit of adding references when you do so. Even though I know nothing about racing I could probably find a ref myself with a quick Google search, but it would be so much easier for you to add the appropriate citation since you are adding the information, and you are knowledgeable about racing. Pan Dan 04:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll take Don Herr as a test case and add some common references. Given that it's close to bedtime, it'll prolly be tomorrow. Keep an eye on the article and I'll give you a heads up. If my additions look ok, I'll add the refs to my indy-database-wiki-dumper-thing-umma-jig so I'll have refs for all the new micro-articles I add. Thanks! --Mycroft.Holmes 04:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Excellent! I appreciate that very much. Pan Dan 04:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Onion

Hi PanDan,

I started the stub on Ken last night while working on another article. Ken's probably the most in demand custom knifemaker in the world and holds over 20 patents on different mechanisms, etc.

I meant for that just to be a stub or a placeholder until I finished the article sometime this weekend...is it ok if I put the "Active Discuss" tag on it while I gather more sources and write this correctly from the ground up? --Mike Searson 20:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I never heard of the "active discuss" tag, but whatever it is, you don't need my permission to put it there! :-) Pan Dan 20:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{userfy}}

I reverted. - crz crztalk 00:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Pan Dan 01:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re : AfD/Rachel Hudson

Hi Pan Dan,

I'm a regular AfD closer (1.5 years), was clearing up other AfD/Old backlogs minutes before notified of this AfD. I closed it like any other AfD should be, and as a kind gesture to everyone participating in that AfD who may have waited a long time for a conclusion (backlogs can be frustrating). I know word-for-word argument in AfDs seem popular these days, but I still go by rough consensus and that is the reason I can offer you for my decision. As you say, it would be no consensus or keep. In any case, I've noted your concerns and will keep that in mind.

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 16:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I present you this barnstar for your tireless vandalism fighting on Morocco -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 16:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Right on! Thanks! Pan Dan 16:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Lost.eu

Howdy. Thanks for the notice on Lost.eu Do ya think there's any way of ensuring that this doesn't go through the same delete/recreate cycle that it went through before? I would say that a site that has gotten 50,000 members in under two months qualifies as notable, especially considering the (blacklisted link removed). samwaltz 00:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know enough about the online world in general to be able to judge whether this site is notable enough using the information you've given me. But in general, there has to be sources independent of the site, that have written things about it. Please see WP:WEB for the specific criteria that web content has to meet to have an article, and of course ask me if you have any more questions (or better yet, find someone who knows about the online world more than I do :-). Pan Dan 00:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't suppose Google having 53,000 hits for the string "www.lost.eu" counts, then.
Right. This is actually a better search to do because it gets hits that are (mostly) independent of lost.eu itself, which is what is needed to show notability. But you're still not done! Then you have to actually wade through those hits to try to find coverage of the site from reliable sources. Pan Dan 01:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, tweak the search a bit. Include "www.lost.eu" as a keyword, rather than "lost.eu". That's why headlines like "Privacy Lost: EU, U.S. laws differ greatly" are included in your search results. Google does not keep track of punctuation marks, largely because they vary from person to person, especially as fewer hold to traditional grammar. In any case, you had 98,500 results; I had 53,000; and our combined search of www.lost.eu and -site:lost.eu has 52,900 (meaning that lost.eu was the server for less than two tenths of one percent of the hits). I'm still skimming for notables. I've come across a few blogs, but that's about it. Granted, some of the blogs might themselves be notable. Hrm. samwaltz 01:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. Good luck on your search! FYI, I'll be away from a computer for about the next 12 hrs., so if you leave me another message and I don't respond, that's why. Pan Dan 01:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Etiquette

I recently noted on an Afd page the high number of comments you had added, and the fact that you had posed over 4,000 words in over 50 comments, as if debating with each person who expressed a desire to keep the article you had nominated for deletion, then I struck out my own comment, since it was off topic with respect to the keeping or deleting of the article. I just want to counsel you not to get too ego involved in the deletion debate, or to feel like you have to have the last word, or to repeat the same arguments in reply to each opposing comment. We all should avoid labelling the opponents in a debate, speculating about their motives or associations, and should stick to the content and references of the article. I looked at your contributions and see that you are in fact a diligent editor who has done a lot of work to clean up Wikipedia. I have done a lot of similar work myself. I sometimes just look at random articles and tag them with "unreferenced." I also routinely search subscription databases of publications or refrences to substantiate the notability of worthy articles which are nominated for deletion but might have merit. I see all the 2 sentence articles which are here to promote someone's website or some garage band, unknown author, etc. Then I see the "articles" which merely note that a TV mast or 1 block city street or 2 lane state highway exists in some book or database, and wonder it the 1.5 million articles in Wikipedia include more than about 300,000 "encyclopedic" articles. The AfD process only addresses about 100 a day, and far more near-worthless articles are created each day, about things which lack ANY references at all. If all currently nominated were deleted each day, the pile of cruddy articles would continue to grow. It is like bailing out the sinking Titanic with a bucket. There is some hope in proposals to automatically delete unreferenced new articles, then maybe to go back anddelete unreferenced old articles. Inclusionists would then probably add one reference to each article which does not really prove the salient facts in the article. Deletionists would delete the references in articles they don't like and tag them for auto-deletion. Oh, well, keep up the good work with patrolling for unreferenced or otherwise defective articles, and nominate away. Edison 17:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comment & advice. I think you're right in what you say about "having the last word." I took to heart descriptions of me as a "wikilawyer" by two people in the AFD, and about 24 hours ago, I pledged in the AFD to make no more comments in it. I'd had my say, many times over. My apology in the AFD to you and WJB a few hours ago has been my only violation of my promise to shut up -- just in case you didn't see it, I apologize to you again for my totally unfounded, irrelevant, and nasty-sounding characterization of your "social and political circles." By the way, you are to be commended for saving good articles from deletion as well as deleting bad ones. It's definitely easier to find fault than favor, and I definitely do a lot of deleting and tagging, although I must insert here that I saved a grand total of two (hey, it's more than one) articles from deletion (even though I now regret saving one of those :-)) and have been known occasionally to add refs to an unref'd article. You also raise a side issue in your comment that I've been thinking about for a while; when I get around to it I'll ask you about that on your talk page. Pan Dan 19:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I feel that it takes me more time to nominate a crappy article for deletion than it would take me to create a crappy article (a paragraph of cut and paste, or a few sentences, unreferenced). The nomination procedure takes repeated cut and paste with at least 2 Wiki windows open, including posting on the talk pages of the creator/major contributors. I wonder if people who nominate a lot of articles have a macro or just are quick at pasting all the repetitious templates and stuff. Edison 19:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you don't like an article

Take it to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, don't do a half-assed job and stick a silly blue note on it, unless you're chicken. The King of Spain's beard 19:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you posted the article, it would be easier for you to find appropriate sources. Just so you know, I did make a minimal effort to look for sources on Lexis-Nexis, but was hampered by the title of the group, because I got a lot of false positives. As for AFD, don't want to take it there yet, because I want to give you (or someone) a chance to look for sources. Pan Dan 19:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Fine, I'll do it for you, then. The King of Spain's beard 19:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Harvard Opportunes

I've modified your post there to allow a link to the correct post on my talk page (since I just archived because I would like to keep my talk page tidy while I am on wikibreak so it is easier to check my messages... :)) Cbrown1023 01:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Pan Dan 01:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy

Policy needs to be a servant of common sense, not a replacement for it. Grace Note 09:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it was meant for you. I just can't remember why! Is it something you agree or disagree with? I probably saw you saying something like "we have to follow the policy" on some page. But the policies are only codifications of the right thing to do, not laws handed down on tablets. Happy new year.Grace Note 02:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complete Garbage

Thanks for the advice, I'm still a bit unfamiliar with Wikipedia etiquette. Arc Lamps & Signal Flares 06:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waiting period

If it were my encyclopedia, a new editor would have to earn the right to independently post and edit, by initially submitting articles or edits for screening by editors who are willing to mentor newbies. Policies abut reliable sources, verifiable sources are not intuitively clear. This would also screen out bored and angry kids sitting in a school's computer lad who just go to some article about a famous person and add an edit that Mary loves John ot George Washington eats poop. The articles on my watch list get stupid vandalism like this about 6 times a day on average. Most postings by new IP addresses are vandalism, and most vandalism is by new IP addresses. If Wikipedia lacked articles, maybe the need for content would dictate that it is a virtue that "anyone can edit" the work. But we have articles on most things that are encyclopedic. As an exercise, I grabbed a random volume of an encyclopedia and started checking for Wiki articles on the same things as in the encyclopedia. Almost every article in the "real" encyclopedia had a Wikipedia article, and the agreement of content was close. except that the Wikipedia articles were much longer and more comprehensive (and lacking inline cites). I found a few birth/death dates in Wikipedia that disagreed with the real encyclopedia (and with other online sources) so I corrected them. and I created a new article about a fish called the "American plaice" (love the name) although I know a lot more about transformers than fish. I found in a list of failed proposals one which restricted anonymous edits in some way and it failed about 75 to 25. Out of 1000 editors, policy is made by 10%, a pretty poor turnout. In summary, per your posting on my talk page, I think Wikipedia is big enough and mature enough that it would benefit greatly from restriction on anonymous editing, and some delay on edits by new users, by way of mentor. I would rather mentor that revert edits and waste my time putting warnings on IP address talk pages or single purpose sockpuppet vandal accounts by established users. And I think Afd is a vital part of Wikipedia to remove the nonnotable vanity spam dreck that people create articles about. I especially do not understand why 492 Pokemon characters are allowed to persist with individual articles based only on non-independent handbooks from the vendor and original research, but real life things (like choral groups, churches, malls, and professors) which have at least some reliable, verifiable and independent sources get deleted because someone can find some fault with the sources. Most Wikipedia articles have no sources whatsoever, in many cases not even a link to their own website, but if you propose them for deletion people complain that you should have searched for sources. I am thinking of writing an essay, WP:SPEW, to the effect that just because one likes, say a TV show, a video game, a movie, a book, or a transit system, it is not desirable to go beyond an article on it and a list of characters, locations, battles, transit stops to creating a spew of stub articles on each of these individual parts, when there are zero independent sources saying anything about the individual parts (like the 493 Pokemon characters). If you ever finish with choral groups, please consider starting with the least notable Pokemon (not a mass deletion). Regards. Edison 14:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giga society

thanx for your concern about that article. But I can't reach that page as it is already deleted. I could have add some more information int hat article, but before editing i'll discuss it in discuss page. i too try too improve wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nubin wiki (talk • contribs) 05:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] The Old Kings

I don't know how to send it to an AfD without the page loading with the debate from the last time around. Could I get your help? Thanks Cornell Rockey 20:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Pan Dan 23:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Much obliged. AfD now set up. Thanks. Cornell Rockey 23:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Lavoisier Group

Thanks for working on The Lavoisier Group page. I felt it could be improved (what you did), but that it did not deserved deletion. Regards. --Childhood's End 00:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm actually not entirely convinced myself that the article should be kept. The sources I've been able to find seem to be mainly opinion pieces and wire stories. The one good source seems to be the one on theage.com.au. I'll keep an eye on the AFD and the article. Pan Dan 00:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German Battleship Bismarck Talk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:German_battleship_Bismarck

Hi, I object to and feel threatened by the use of the words: "I give you one week to provide verifiable cites for the following statements, otherwise I will attempt to edit this article into a decent state, removing or modifying speculation, uncyclopaedic language, and absurd statements" by user "Greglocock" on the above page.

I lay no prior claim on the Bismarck article. My interest in it comes from the substantial edit and subsequent smaller edits made over the last two years to bring it up to where it is. However, I feel that this user, who has not edited the page before, is coming to it with a hidden agenda and not looking at the wider picture and purpose of the article. But it's his tone and language I object to bigpad 21:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you contact an admin. Please see Wikipedia:List of admins. Take care, Pan Dan 21:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: AfD/French Twist (Gilmore Girls)

I went to check out the entire List of Gilmore Girls episodes and it appears the episodes are still in a developing (aka "organic growth") phrase, which also means that episode stubs will be inevitable. I'm going to give some benefit of the doubt and give editors time to do cleanup on the problem articles. To go delete will set a dangerous precedent for some editors to attempt wiping off all the remaining episodes using the same set of arguments, which is not what we want here. - Mailer Diablo 03:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Of course, WP:CCC - I've deleted articles that were previously kept by AfD 6 months ago. I see two main arguments on the AfD for those advocating delete, first being the article's standards being too poor for inclusion (which is your stand), and the other being there is no justification (notability) for the topic (all Gilmore Girls episode articles) to exist in the first place. What I mean is that I don't want to send the wrong message to the second group of people that Gilmore Girls episodes are not notable to justify their own articles; the consensus is that the articles are notable and more of requiring cleanup/"organic growth" than an outright deletion. Hope that clarifies. Of course, I welcome criticism - I'm just another human! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 14:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allen Central High School

You prodded and then deprodded Allen Central High School. If you look at the history of the article, it used to be longer with some external references, but I removed some text as being unverifiable and useless. Perhaps I was wrong. You might want to look at the older versions of the article to see whether student comments about the U.S. Civil War are relevant. --Eastmain 15:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll do what you suggest. When I looked for sources earlier, the only thing I came across that potentially could be used to expand the article was an AP release about the NAACP and Confederate flags outside the school. Pan Dan 20:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The local newspaper's archives probably have articles about segregation and desegregation at the school in the 1950s and 1960s, but without access to the printed newspapers or microfilms from those years, there's not much I can do. --Eastmain 21:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

I have initiated a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Nearly Headless Nick disregarding consensus and consensus-related policies, a matter in which I believe you to have been involved in the case history of in several different places. Your commentary may be appreciated. Balancer 13:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Wydler

I know the article is short but I created it for people to expand on it. He has done other things than The Bad Seeds, I just don't know much about them so I figured I'd let more knowledgeable people do it. I wouldn't have changed it to a redirect to the main Bad Seeds article; other Bad Seeds musicians have their own article. --Pushit 14:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I undid the redirect. If you know of any sources about him that could be used to expand the article, please add them. Pan Dan 17:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Galen (measurement)

I went ahead and speedy deleted Galen (measurement). It is a hoax article, as no such measurement exists in the metric system. Thus the article is entirely useless and damaging to Wikipedia. I also speedy deleted Galen Petruso by the same author. JIP | Talk 15:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yuan

I saw that you have been discussing the article Yuan (surname), which I have tagged as suspected WP:OR. You might want to contribute to the discussion on Talk:Yuan (surname)...--Niohe 23:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD rationale

Hi Pan Dan. Thanks for your question about the Chinese names AFD. I view my role in AFD closings as determining as best as possible what the consensus view of AFD-participants. In this case, the consensus was to keep. Bucketsofg 02:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale

I've added a rationale at your request. However, if you disagree, or have heard from anyone who does, please DRV it. Any non-admin close to which there is any opposition or question should be examined at DRV, in my opinion. (I removed a spam-blacklisted link from your page by the way, I hope you don't mind, but I couldn't save the page with it there!) Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 21:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of content management systems

Why did you only delete BASE-10 from List of content management systems? Why does it not have the same right to exist as any other CMS tool? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.108.150.168 (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

You are free to do these things yourself: (1) Check the other CMS tools listed and remove the ones that do not appear to pass our notability guideline. (2) Provide independent sources to show that BASE-10 passes our notability guideline.
But please avoid writing about subjects with which you may have a conflict of interest. Pan Dan 17:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It has the most basic information. It is purely for information. There are 7 links written from independent sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drakeja (talk • contribs).

If you can write an article using independent sources, do so, and then post the page. As of now, no context is given, no reason is given why this product is notable (i.e. why it should be in an encyclopedia), and the independent sources listed are not about this product and cannot be used to write an encyclopedia article. Pan Dan 17:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think you are an expert in CMS systems and you are not qualified to make that call. I do understand the rules you are trying to apply and all the entries for Commercial CMS systems should be removed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drakeja (talk • contribs).

The only question here is whether this product has been covered in independent sources that we could use to write an encyclopedia article. This has nothing to do with having expertise in CMS systems. By the way, have you read Avoid conflict of interest? Pan Dan 17:57, 6 March 2007

(UTC)

So I should have had my friend right it...I know no employee of Microsoft ever entered info about Windows. That is a fundamental flaw with Wikipedia. How do I delete my account?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drakeja (talk • contribs).

I don't know, I think it's impossible to delete one's account. But don't leave Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to see how you can contribute. Pan Dan 18:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok

Your words are well received.

Thx

[edit] (moved from user page)

Hey, sorry! I honestly thought he was born in Kenya. I had recently read something to this effect as well. Please accept my sincere and humble apologies :-(.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.55.126.133 (talk • contribs).

[edit] "With consent of closer"

"With consent of closer" is a bit of a play on words, considering I think it's a stupid idea to undo the close. The fact is, I'm not arguing with you over it because I find it funny that you'd want to revert it, that can hardly be considered "consent". --Deskana (talk) (review me please) 16:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, maybe "permission" would have been better. Pan Dan 16:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a note. Sense the AFD on "You" has been reopened, I reverted the article to add the tag back --Ron Ritzman 18:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Good thinking. Thanks. Pan Dan 18:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas J. Barrett

Message left on my talk page Socby19 16:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)SocBy19

[edit] PhD claims

I am just flagging the obvious fake claims and asking for proof to prevent another esjay experience. Won't you help??? 70.51.242.217 17:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page today :) --phenzTalk 20:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Pleasure :) Pan Dan 20:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Backpacking

 You're invited to be a part of WikiProject Backpacking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to backpacking. To accept this invitation, click here!


[edit] Re: You AFD

Not sure there's any need for a rationale. Closing it as delete or no consensus would have led to protests given the overwhelming number of keep arguments there (despite the fact that most of them are arguments listed in WP:ATA). --Coredesat 19:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's an obvious keep. It simply can't be closed any other way, and most other admins would also have closed it as a keep. If you want to move it to Wiktionary or merge it somewhere, that's an editorial decision that can be made outside an AFD since deletion isn't involved. --Coredesat 19:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, I think Coredesat was right to close this as a keep, the consensus was an overhwelming keep so why should he go against it? However, I would suggest that if you're not happy, you take the matter to deletion review as I'm sure discussions between you, me and him will not change the result. All the best The Rambling Man 22:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (move comment from userpage)

Ok ill stop wuteva just 1 question who the fuck wuz talkin to you but i will stop editing stuff—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dipset45 (talk • contribs).

[edit] RE:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yo

The deletion debate was a very clear keep. If you feel there was some error in process (process, not the outcome), then you may ask for a review. I don't think there were any in this case. I won't overturn the decision or relist, and any nomination in the next month would be speedy kept. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 22:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your NPWatcher Application

Dear Pan Dan,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.

Martinp23 21:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Joe Nesci. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. EliminatorJR Talk 23:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It was a copyvio, as I wrote in my edit summary. Pan Dan 23:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete debate posted

If you are going to Speedy Delete an article (Dauphine Press), it seems only appropriate to have ALL the DIALOGUE from the debate posted on file. Was this oversight due to the critism of Wikipedia's seemingly arbitary deletion criteria? It is frustrating to post a factual item, only to be told it will only be considered factual if it is submitted by someone else. Facts are facts, unless Wikipedia thinks otherwise. User: Peachapple

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/n/User_talk%7EPan_Dan_1142.html"