User talk:Dank

	(12/07-4/08) - (-7/08) - (-11/08)
	(-2/09) - (Mar) - (Apr) - (May)
	(June)

I'll reply to your message here.

Instant IRC

Admin stuff	Images	Links	News	Shiny things	Speedy deletions	WP:Update	Wiki-Conference 2009

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

New Article Review

Hey Dank. I have previously posted a new page that I created incorrectly, and you moved it to my user sandbox before it was deleted. I'm trying to request a RfC for it, but I'm not sure if anyone is seeing it, or if I had done something wrong. Did I miss something? Do you have any suggestions? Thanks. Blackdaz (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on a break (my first real wikibreak in more than a year and a half). Hopefully someone will see this and help you out. - Dank (push to talk) 03:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. Enjoy your break. =) Aditya ^α _ß 16:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No rest for the weary, my break didn't last long :) - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Dank. You have new messages at Mlaffs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Sugar Rose Company

The Sugar Rose Company speedy deleted a few minutes ago has been recreated. Teapotgeorge^Talk 21:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and it's back again!! Teapotgeorge^Talk 21:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pedrorivto

This is the first time I've ever tagged a user page with the spam-warn-userpage template and I just want to make sure if I did it alright at User:Pedrorivto or not... -WarthogDemon 03:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion wouldn't be my call here because the Heritage Foundation is well-funded and savvy about a lot of things. On the other hand, they do tend to be self-promotional, and you might be able to catch them in some lies if you do some digging. I tried Googling "Pedrorivto" and got nothing; can you connect that name to their organization? - Dank (push to talk) 03:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gah I'm probably wrong. Somehow I'm always wrong in identifying spam userpages, or I always mishandle them. :P At any rate, user made a subpage for it so I suppose the best thing to do is wait and see what he does. -WarthogDemon 03:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't look at me, I don't have G11 figured out ... that's just a page where I would wait and watch, mostly because of who's behind it. - Dank (push to talk) 03:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, sorry if it sounded like I'm picking on you. :P Any headsmacking I'm doing is to my own head. Anyways, thanks and cheers. :) -WarthogDemon 03:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, thanks for your tagging work. - Dank (push to talk) 03:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Dustboss

I responded to your email at your talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Behealthy1

I have been trying to create a page for a company in which I work with no avail. I prefer to "request" that it be added to the encyclopedia.Behealthy1 (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking ... WP:WHYNOT and the section just below it explains how to do just that. - Dank (push to talk) 18:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nudging

Why don't you run for B'cratship? I've seen that you've participated in discussing RFA policies and I happen to agree with you a lot. You would be a great b'crat if you want to be.--Caspian blue 15:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk endorsed (does this template even exist...?) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind, both of you, but I couldn't win an election to county dogcatcher with my pitiful article work. I've been collecting sources on local North Carolina stuff ... roads, attractions, laws ... for a while, but the CSD and spam username work sucked up all my time. I'm finally ready to write some articles. (Notice I'm dodging the question, per WP:CANVASS). - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dodging the bullet? :) Aside from the NC stuffs, I urge(?) you to create some articles on food stuff for the reason that I got to know your name (foodie!) .:) --Caspian blue 22:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep that in mind; I've got some sources on farmer's markets that I could start with. - Dank (push to talk) 23:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got your e-mail

Hi Dank, I received your e-mail. I want to apologize if I've put you off through our disagreement over the copyright pages; I think you and I have worked well together in the past, and I think we still are working well together, despite the appearance of a disagreement. It's just that sometimes it takes a while to talk things through and find common ground. I don't consider it embarrassing to disagree with each other over something initially, as long as we both work towards a compromise, which I think is what we're doing. I have no qualms about carrying out a debate on-wiki; I wouldn't say anything off-wiki that I wouldn't say on-wiki. (Also, I don't like sending e-mail from Wikipedia, since that requires giving out my e-mail address, which includes my real name.) To directly answer your request to explain what you might not be understanding, let me set forth my position clearly on the issue, and you can tell me what you think:

We have a multitude of policy pages. As you've said (and I agree with you on this), usually these policy pages can be freely edited by anyone, subject to reversion if consensus is lacking. WP:GFDL and WP:CC-BY-SA are exceptions to this rule, as they are essentially imposed upon us by the entire Wikimedia community (acting through the Wikimedia Foundation), and are non-negotiable. Also, since the languages of these licenses are not even controlled by the WMF, but by the Free Software Foundation and Creative Commons, they CAN'T and SHOULDN'T be edited by anyone not employed by those organizations. So I think the disagreement between is very minor: should the two of them be considered "Wikipedia policy" or not? I think it depends on how you define "Wikipedia policy". If you want to limit it to pages which are open to modification by the en.wikipedia community, then they are not policy, and I think that this is where you're coming from (correct me if I'm wrong). I've been interpreting the word "policy" in a more general way, I think, in seeing "Wikipedia policy" as "the highest level of community rules". Perhaps we need some sort of "super-policy" category which the licenses should fall into, since no other policies, (even IAR, in my opinion), can supercede them. So this does agree with your position that they are not "Wikipedia policy", per se, because they are not like any of our other policies.

That said, even if we agree that they aren't Wikipedia policy, I would still argue that they should be included in Category:Wikipedia policy. Why? Well, for one thing, just because it's in the category doesn't actually mean it's a policy like all the others. I would like to include it in the category because I think that someone looking at the category should be seeing all of our top-level rules. Perhaps we should "DEFAULTSORT" them to the very top or very bottom of the category listing, to make it clear that they are separate? Tell me your opinion, as I always appreciate your input. and I hope we can keep our collaborations going in the future. Highest regards, --Aervanath (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Highest regards from me as well. Which pages are policies? For as long as I've been looking, it's been the pages in Category:Wikipedia official policy, and WP:POLICY has said for a long time (near the end) "Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines lists approved, rejected, and proposed policies". It wouldn't bother me if there's a vote to change that, but I think that's how it's always been; certainly, when non-policy pages have been inserted or policy pages have been removed from WP:LOP, almost no one has cared, so if WP:LOP becomes the real list, someone is going to have to maintain it.

Would it work for you to transclude WP:GFDL and WP:CC-BY-SA into a policy page without calling them policy pages by themselves? That way, the policy page could get across all the things you want to say about how important those two pages are. - Dank (push to talk) 20:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're already prominently linked from WP:Copyrights, and that policy makes it pretty clear that they're non-negotiable, so I guess that makes them "policies by default", and I'll drop my objection to removing them from the policy category. Here's a question: what sub-cat of WP:LOP would Wikipedia:Terms of use fall into? Would you object to including the licenses in that category? Or a sub-cat of Category:Wikipedia policy called Category:Wikipedia licenses which would be especially for the GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses?--Aervanath (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed what was going on with Wikipedia:Terms of use ... this has just about decided me in favor of covering all the policy pages at WP:Update, as long as people don't think I'm trying to take over the wiki by doing that. That page was marked historical until June 16, then in one day it went from historical to permanently fully protected (without wide discussion that I can see, and without intervening disruptive edits). My personal feeling is that pages that are about things that can't be changed on Wikipedia and concern more projects than Wikipedia should have the main pages off of Wikipedia, although I'm fine with copying the contents to sections of policy pages here. Not sure what subcat WP:Terms_of_use should be in. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain either, but I would guess put all three of them under Category:Wikipedia licenses or Category:Wikipedia licensing, or something like that. But the Terms of Use policy would probably still have to be dual-categorized in the main policy category, since it does fit our standard definition of a policy as something which can be modified by the community (I think).--Aervanath (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either cat sounds fine to me. User:MGodwin will be able to tell us how much of Wikipedia:Terms of use is available for en.wp to fiddle around with. - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines#Subcats. - Dank (push to talk) 03:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSD

One request: add the {{notenglish|[language]}} tag when the G11 page is not in English,

Okay, will do. And thanks. --Calton | Talk 15:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really outstanding tagging work. - Dank (push to talk) 16:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion

Why did you Speedy Textbooksrus.com? While I agree with the deletion, there was a hangon tag on the article, for contest of the deletion. I was writing a discussion on the talk page when it was deleted. Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the contest is not binding, but you should have given time for the author to respond. Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored and moved the article to my userspace, with {{noindex}}, at User:Dank/Textbooksrus.com. Now ... do you believe this article was an attempt to create an encyclopedic article, or an attempt to advertise merchandise? - Dank (push to talk) 19:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary deletion

Hey Dank. You deleted my article about Comax Flavors. I was simply adding the company that I work for to the list of other flavor companies that are here already. How was my article any different than the one for Givaudan, besides the fact that I didn't name specific customers to give it a better name for itself? I even took out mention of our lines of flavors. I had very basic information. I think that it was unnecessary to delete it, if nobody id deleting any other company articles.68.167.129.27 (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ... I know this is a little unsatisfying coming from the guy who deleted your article, but welcome to Wikipedia :) The very best answer I can give is the one at WP:WHYNOT, and also read the section just below that one. If you have more questions, you can click on the bubble at the top of this page for chat help, and the people at WP:N? are also very helpful with new users. - Dank (push to talk) 13:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dank. I put in a request for an article on my user page (talk page?). I understand the "conflict of interest" thing. I wish that had been explained in the SPAM heading. If it was and I missed it, I'm sorry. I'm just trying to keep up with the Jonses and get our name out there. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roo2904 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and I wish all Wikipedians were more sensitive to the fact that, as the encyclopedia grows, we're going to get more people coming here, not to get out in front of their competitors, but not to be left behind. If you have any trouble after following those steps, please let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 14:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need your Help!!

Hello!!!

Please Look at this. "More About Sanjay Dixit" on this page redirect to Wikipedian article. I really have no idea whether this is allowed or not . I believe user is using wikipedia as self promotion coz it is intended to get updated every month. Please look into this. In fact, i couldn't find any established guidelines related to this. Regards!!
Hitro talk 19:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I can't see it; Web of Trust blocks that page. Try clicking on the bubble at the top of my page for chat help, or leave a message at WP:N?. - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left message at WP:N now. Thanks for it!!! :) Hitro talk 19:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I recently put a PROD tag on Islam in the Pitcairn Islands (which I have since removed) as being unsourced and speculative. The original editor made a good-faith effort to add sources and even discussed the matter on the talk page. I feel that they have done everything they can do to make the entry better. I am conflicted, however, as I believe that it is still not necessary. To me it is akin to creating a list of blizzards in the Sahara. I want to encourage this editor to contribute and not discourage them from doing so, but I also want to suggest merging the information into Pitcairn Islands or something to that effect. I would appreciate a neutral opinion on this. Thanks in advance for your help. Wperdue (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

AfD would be appropriate I think; what do you think? - Dank (push to talk) 02:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I wouldn't hesitate to take this straight to AfD. However, after you encouraged me to participate on the CSD discussion board (which I have started to do), I get the impression that I might have been too harsh in the past with this policy in the view of some editors. It looks to me as if their is a large group of administrators that believes that CSD, AfD, and PROD taqs are discouraging too many new editors from contributing. In my experience this isn't necessarily a bad thing with the amount of "junk" that I see patrolling new pages and this may just be a "deletionist" vs. "inclusionist" debate that manifests in those discussions. In this situation, the original editor has done everything they can, in my opinion, to improve the entry. I can't find any specific rules or policies on this type of thing. It's almost like trying to prove a negative. I'm a stickler for logic and equal application of the rules, but this one has me stumped. Wperdue (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

Anyone else want to jump in here? The complete text of the article is: "Unless there has been secret conversion, Islam does not exist in the British overseas territory of the Pitcairn Islands, which is 100% Seventh Day Adventist, due to a successful visit from missionaries who visited the island. ... No Mosques currently exist on any of the four Pitcairn Islands. ... An estimated 0% of Pitcairn Islanders adhere to Islam." - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't for AfD, I think. It should be merged to to Pitcairn Islands, which doesn't require an AFD. My advice: be bold, work the information into Pitcairn Islands, and make Islam in the Pitcairn Islands into a redirect with the edit summary "merged to Pitcairn Islands" so we know to keep the redirect for GFDL reasons. Then, let the interested editor help improve the Pitcairn Islands article, instead. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like content looking for a reason to exist. I'd vote to delete it if it went to AfD. Orderinchaos 05:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of you :) One downside to AfD is that people tend to pile on when the answer is obvious ("Awful, get rid of it"), and this can be disheartening, so I see where you're coming from, Aervanath. On the other hand, if a wikiproject is making bad decisions, creating a number of articles to fill out a cat where there are no sources supporting significance, how else are they going to find out that this is inappropriate, other than through community discussion of some kind? I wouldn't want to assert that they should just take my word for it because I'm so smart; they should get a random assortment of views, and AfD is nothing if not a random assortment :) - Dank (push to talk) 11:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)Suggested compromise: use the {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} templates to hold a brief discussion in case you need some form of consensus to support boldness while not going into the AfD territory. MLauba (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, and I'd suggest listing it at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers after the merge tags are added. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the helpful suggestions. The OE has added the {{mergeto}} and I have added the {{mergefrom}} as well as creating the discussion on the talk page. I will add the discussion to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Wperdue (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

Recreation of an article you speedy-deleted at my request

Hi. It seems that about two hours after you speedy deleted Rawhide Boys Ranch, a major contributor on the last incarnation of it recreated it in user space & has just moved it to mainspace. The article is still almost entirely sourced to the topic's website (though an attempt has been made to cite a few directory-sites as well as window-dressing). I've speedy-nominated it again, but thought you might be interested. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not sure what to do with that one; would you be interested in taking it to WP:COIN? - Dank (push to talk) 16:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problematical. To demonstrate COI and/or WP:SOCK (of User:Rawhide1683), I'd probably need the (now deleted) edit history of the previous incarnation of the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have restored the edit history. - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've posted this on WP:COIN. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Thank you. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was priceless. (I'm referring to the last comment here). - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Committee

It's fine. seems like it would be best to hold off on the committee, since even if I did have a decent number sign up, now's not the best time. If anyone wants to look into article probation in the future they certainly could. As for the wikibreak, that's been in the books for a lil while now. No active cases + summer break = some deserved time off :) Wizardman 21:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vacation is a great idea, I think I'll take one too (it's the only way I'll get my article-writing done). - Dank (push to talk) 21:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can haz my user page back?

Hey Dank,

Looks like you deleted my poor, spam-laden, unfinished, conflict-of-interest containin' user page. I hadn't edited the thing in a gods-age, but would like to employ some judicious edits on my previous work. I know, I know, creating articles about one's employer isn't wiki-de rigueur, but I believe my company is indeed notable, and I'd hate to start from scratch with this thing (even if the first draft was all filler, no thriller.)

I hereby swear on the Pork Chop Express to practice Wikipedia:WHYNOT compliance like a hard core Wikipedia:WHYNOT compliance drug addict. And if you or any other beautiful people like you can be of any assistance in crafting an article that meets the Wikipedia:WHYNOT guidelines I'll consider ya'll my pimps, drug dealers, and supernatural boogeymen.

Thanks for your time,

Motobasura (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy editing. Even better: I've re-created the content at User:Motobasura/PowerMax and added {{noindex}} so that it doesn't get picked up by Google. I expect Wikipedia rules and regulations are kind of boring, but if you get interested, WP:UP describes what userpages are for; your main userpage is for talking about yourself (briefly) and your involvement with Wikipedia, not for talking about a business. Even User:Motobasura/PowerMax is not forever; feel free to twiddle with it if you like, but sometime in the next week or two, that needs to move into articlespace (at PowerMax I would guess) so that people can edit it and tag it mercilessly. That's what we do here; crowdsourcing is why people like to read Wikipedia. Articles on businesses in userspace, where most readers and editors aren't looking, usually get deleted, sometimes quickly. - Dank (push to talk) 23:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah 4 Dank! man, now that I look at that (tiny) piece it would probably been just as effective to start from scratch. Anyways - thanks for being such a mensch!

Motobasura (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Motobasura/PowerMax

Okay, I've watchlisted it. I can see why I tagged it in the first place. --Calton | Talk 16:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development/Drini is a brilliant summary of the APCD mess and en wiki in general. Plus the stress of arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I have no political skills, and if I did, it wouldn't help me, since I don't keep up with ArbCom, AN, or ANI. So I can't tell you what went wrong or what you guys should be doing. It seems to me that the community is largely accepting of the increasingly rare times that Jimbo asserts founder power, largely respectful of the WMF's role, and (although I don't keep up) largely willing to support ArbCom's decisions and provide ArbCom with information and advice when requested. But the community has quite a long track record now of rejecting perceived attempts by Jimbo, the WMF or ArbCom to "help us govern ourselves", and I don't foresee that changing. I think the English Wikipedia acts as if it sees ArbCom as a kind of slightly-beefed-up U.S. Supreme Court, with direct democracy replacing the executive and legislative branches, and a very solid majority believes that for ArbCom to appoint a committee to advise us on what we're doing wrong is just as inappropriate as it would be for the U.S. Supreme Court to appoint a committee to advise the President and Congress on political matters. OTOH, when Wizardman invited me and others to give advice on how the probation on Obama articles was working out, I thought ~~(maybe naively, as it turns out)~~ that that was completely appropriate: I imagined a limited-purpose, limited-time committee of people previously involved in the case being asked to draw conclusions.

I dropped by your talk page to let you know that I'm listening if you're having a hard time. If anything I said at WP:Requests_for_comment/Advisory Council on Project Development seemed too harsh or unappreciative of your efforts, please let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 13:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Now that I've read a bit more of the brouhaha, I think some others are going too far with their criticism. As far as I'm concerned, ArbCom is more than welcome to ask people who have been involved with specific ArbCom cases to give feedback (individually or as a group) that's relevant to the issues in those cases. Also, I have no problem at all supporting the individuals in the particular committee that was formed ... as long as they understand that anyone can form a committee at any time to try to tackle the suggested issues (and if this committee becomes persuasive, you can count on competing committees springing up), but since that committee was selected by ArbCom and has ArbCom members, they're going to have an uphill battle avoiding the perception of a seal of approval from ArbCom, so it would probably be best for those individuals and others to re-think and re-group. For any new committees that spring up, I hope they understand that they have to do the same thing with their research and recommendations that everyone else on Wikipedia has to do ... submit them to the community for approval or rejection. - Dank (push to talk) 17:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]