This is an archive of posts on my talk page prior to November 3, 2009. Please do not edit this page or post new messages here.

This discussion is a reminder of my welcome to Wikipedia.

Drilnoth was kind enough to welcome me to Wikipedia on 29 April 2009. I've deleted the text as it was a bit bulky but thanks Drilnoth and everyone else who's helped me out since I created this account. - DustFormsWords (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion relates to articles I had tagged for A7 Speedy Deletion.

Having seen your comments at AfD suggesting that many articles should be A7 speedy deleted can I suggest you carefully read the criteria at WP:CSD. A7 only applies to articles "about a real person individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content". Many of the articles you have suggested be speedy deleted do not meet this criteria as they're not about one of these subjects. Speedy delete criteria are delibrately narrowly defined and so you should make sure you fully understand the criteria. Hope this is of some help. Dpmuk (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thank you for that reminder! I'd been a bit careless, and I'll cite it less often. I'm sure no harm's done though; I've only been referencing it in AfD debates, not applying the speedy delete template to articles, and if an article doesn't assert notability that's a good sign it's liable for deletion per WP:N even if that deletion isn't necessarily speedy. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd agree that no real harm's been done and as you state you've not tagged any pages for speedy. However I thought it better to let you know now in case you do later decide to tag pages for speedy. From a cursory at your comments I'd agree that most of the articles are suitable for deletion. Dpmuk (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm also trying to go back through ones I've argued for speedy and ensuring they're appropriate; if you have a concern about a specific debate please let me know. And thank you for taking the time to politely further my education! Much appreciated. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion relates to my argument that Nurarihyon no Mago should be merged to its host publication.

You got the usual two who always argue nonstop to delete these types of things, and then you got me who always tries to reason with them and save them. You original said Keep, and then gave up after they argued for a bit. With half of us saying Keep, and the other half saying Delete, maybe the closing administrator will keep it. You never can tell, it depending on whoever gets there to close it first and their personal opinions. Anyway, never hesitate to state your true opinions on something, and remember that almost no one bothers to read the long never ending arguments/discussions so its best to just ignore them after awhile. Do what in your heart you believe is right, and never let others bully you out of stating your honest opinions. Dream Focus 19:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks for the encouragement Dream Focus! But at this stage I honestly believe Merge is the correct option; the article doesn't have the sources necessary to pass a test of individual notability. Those sources could possibly be found and added but I'm not the person with the expertise to find them. - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge to them means a redirect, and nothing else. The other article will not have anything but the title and year published in it. So its the same as delete. Akane-chan_Overdrive closed as merge, and then when some of us kept trying to put information over there, it kept getting deleted, we going elsewhere to protest, and they finally allowing a paragraph of information to be there. A month later, this was erased, since it wasn't proper to have anything on the list other than the bare information. They still feel that way, and will erase anything else put there. So you can not merge. Its Keep or Delete, nothing more. Dream Focus 23:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• If relevant information's getting deleted from a page, there's another process for that - seek admin intervention, if nothing else. The fact that a process is getting abused elsewhere doesn't mean we shouldn't use the right process here. But thanks for the context. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Are you keeping up on development? You are still listed as Merge, not Keep. Since it has been proven two of the volumes sold over a 100,000 each, etc, others have said Keep now. Just wondering if you changed your mind or not, since you originally did say Keep. Dream Focus 21:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I still believe Merge is the appropriate option. But thanks. - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion relates to me forgetting to sign some posts.

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks, automated signature bot! I do indeed attempt to sign all my posts, and if I've missed one it should be taken as an accidental lapse rather than any attempt to go incognito. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion relates to my participation in the MMA HEAT AfD, which resolved as Delete in accordance with my arguments.

I do not believe the article MMA HEAT should have been deleted. It provided information about a valid news source within the mixed martial arts (MMA) community. Everything within the article could be confirmed on the company's official website, http://www.MMAheat.com, as well as their Facebook fan page, http://www.facebook.com/MMAheat. If this article was not worthy of Wikipedia inclusion than UFC, Sherdog and many other articles should be deleted as well. MMA H.E.A.T. has been making notable contributions to the MMA community since 2007. Most recently, they were the only news organization to be filming Chuck Liddell's UFC 100 Tao Beach Party in Las Vegas on 7/10, Fedor Emelianenko's press conference discussing his agreement with EA Sports on 7/29 and Cris Cyborg's body slam of Tito Ortiz at Cleber Jiu Jitsu at the beginning of last month. Eckinc (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hi Ekcinc. You appear to be under the misunderstanding that I was involved in deleting the article MMA Heat; I was not. That will have been done by an administrator. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• On 7 October 2009 User:Eckinc deleted this discussion from my talk page. I have reverted the delete. Please do not delete content from other users' talk pages, even if it's a conversation you've taken part in. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I was simply trying to close this debate, eliminating any more wasted time. Eckinc (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion relates to the Barnstar I awarded Gakon5 for rescuing the Greg Street article from deletion.

I wasn't sure there was much to write (within the rules of Wikipedia) about Ghostcrawler, but I'm interested to see where the page can go from here. --gakon5 (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion relates to my Delete argument in the Mike Fageros AfD.

In regards to deletion of Mike Fageros, I am wondering with all of the bullshit on wikipedia, how could a relevant jazz guitarist who has made a contribution to an art form (jazz) could be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Songwriter79 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hi Songwriter79. Noting that the Mike Fageros AfD isn't yet over - you have plenty of time to make your argument there - the main issue is that the article is entirely unreferenced. We're not saying we shouldn't have an article on this guy (or at least I'm not), we're saying that the article has no references. Check out WP:RS and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Because the guy is still alive, claims about him on Wikipedia expose Wikipedia to potential legal action for defamation. That's why everything in the article has to have a source. If you can find sources and add them to the article, that would be a relevant matter to the AfD debate and I'd gladly reconsider my opinion if that were to occur. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Unfortunately, The review of Mars in October CD (Mike Fageros) by the website Smoothjazz.de link does not work any more. You were correct in deleting it. Therefore, the review will have to be accessed through the direct link on the artist website www.mikefageros that shows the original review in it's entirity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.161.193 (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion relates to my Keep vote in the The Lurking (disambiguation page) AfD, which TenPoundHammer correctly explains was not in accordance with policy.

Here's a quote from WP:DAB#What not to include: "A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion[…]Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context." I don't think that's the case here, since none of those is called just "The Lurking." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Also, you can't merge then delete, that'd transfer authorship and violate GFDL. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks Ten Pound Hammer. I'm not sure I follow your comment about merge/delete but the DAB policy is helpful and I'll go change my vote on the Lurking accordingly. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • If you merge and delete, the authorship history of the former content from the deleted page is then gone, making it look like the merger wrote something that he or she didn't. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Okay, so the appropriate solution would be just merge, or merge and change to redirect? Sorry, I haven't done a merge before so I'm procedurally clueless. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion relates to signing up with the Article Rescue Squadron.

How did you hear about us? a warm welcome!

Thanks. Have been hanging out on AfD for a month or so and occasionally rescuing articles/providing help to new users so I thought I should get around to formally badging myself as doing that. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles tagged for deletion and rescue Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found Hi, DustFormsWords, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful: Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification. Many times we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Many of these editors are also new to Wikipedia so may see deleting "their" article as "bitey". Encourage civility and maybe even ((welcome)) them if they have only been templated with deletion messages. The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles. Introduction to deletion process gives a good overview and some good advice for newcomers to deletion. Our primary work is improving articles tagged for rescue. On this template you can see a drop-down list of current articles tagged. You can install it on your own page by putting ((ARS/Tagged)). A more dynamic list with article links and description is on our current articles page. It is highly recommended you watchlist it. If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to the list of translators available. Articles and sources that use non-English languages often need translation for those of us who cannot translate for ourselves. Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! Ikip (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion relates to my Keep vote in the 2nd Howard Press AfD, which resolved as No Consensus.

I respect your work at AfD. That is why I was surprised by this opinion offered at the AfD for the above-captioned article.

The lede makes a number of claims:

• date of birth / year of death
• education level achieved
• "first to develop a process for time release or sustained release medication"
• receipt of process patent for previous item

Obviously the first two are not claims that even if true give rise to notability. WP:PROF is the only notability guideline that explicitly mentions patents or inventions, and it states that receipt of a patent does not give rise to notability. The claim with regards to the scope of the invention is original research, unsupported by any sources (including the patent, which has much more modest wording), and apparently contradicted by several. Moreover, it is a claim that even if true does not automatically give rise to notability under any guideline or even under common sense. The suggestion that editors should get into a content dispute over unsourced original research in order to have a legitimate AfD discussion is troubling. One of the reasons that AfD discussions are useful is that they take place outside of article space, usually preventing the sort of edit-warring that would occur if the nominator instead of taking an article to AfD stripped out the OR or NPOV from non-conforming articles. I would be interested in your perspectives on the above. Regards, ^Bongo_matic 07:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no ((talkback)) or other comment on my talk page is required.Reply[reply]

• Reply - my apologies, you are correct in that I didn't fully explain my viewpoint. I'll go expand my argument at the AfD debate and I invite you to read it there shortly. (Thank you for taking the time to engage me!) - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Done. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. ^Bongo_matic 07:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion relates to Drsjpdc's attempts to delete the Howard Press article after the 2nd AfD closed as no consensus, which I opposed, and also to the resulting 3rd Howard Press AfD.

What are you doing? Why? Is it really necessary to possibly kill my mother? This will certainly do that if she sees this. I am asking in the ost poliete way I can to get your help to find a way to remove this article. There is no longer any reason but cruelty to keep this online. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 23:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Reply - Hi Drspjpdc. I have no issue with yourself, your mother, or Howard Press. I'm merely following Wikipedia procedure of creating accurate articles about notable people. You made a strong case for Howard Press' notability, which I agreed with and still agree with. Therefore the article should stand. There are many articles about historically important people on Wikipedia that present both positive and negative facts - John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Nelson Mandella are two that come to mind.. I would be interested in helping you improve coverage of Mr Press' notable and beneficial achievements to present a balanced view of his life, if that would help, but I can't find support under any Wikipedia policy for your proposal to delete the article. Wikipedia is not the place to revise history or to cover up regrettable things a person might have done. I invite you to continue this discussion on the Howard Press talk page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hey Dust, I just replied to your response to me. I am usually a big inclusionist, but this article is completely screwy. Both in how it was created, and in regarding some infrequent contributors defending it from deletion and apparently gleeful about adding the criminal stuff - it just smells real strange to me. Drspjpdc did make his best case for notability on the prior AfDs, but not only was he horribly conflicted, but Bongomatic was right on that the notability was based on original research and conclusions, some of which has been challenged already. I interpreted your keep vote in the 2nd AFD as saying, as I would agree, that assertions of notabilty confer notability if sources can back it up. But there's never been an article saying Press was big for his pharmaceutical inventions, or for anything else, and you can't assume that Drspjpdc is a fair judge of notability. There's just some press mentions in 1960-61 about the indictments then. Seems to me the best thing to do is unwind this mess and delete it.--Milowent (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Reply - Hi, Milowent. Big thanks for your involvement in the debate and your work on the article. My position is as below. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Argument for Howard Press

The invention

• (1) The invention of time release medication is notable.
• (2) The inventor of time release medication is notable.
• (3) If the inventor of time release medication were to be Press, he would therefore be notable.
• (4) Press filed several lawsuits against Lowey in which Press claimed to be the inventor, one of which in 1973 led Lowey to settle by giving Press a share in his business.
• All of the above is, as I understand it, not in issue and backed up by reliable sources. We have a claim of notability that reached a level sufficient that, for whatever reason, Lowey was not able to completely and comprehensively deny it on all bases. It's certainly arguable, but in my opinion that lets Press pass the bar for historical notability established at general criterion #2 of WP:ANYBIO.

The crimes

• (1) In Hoboken in 1963 FDA agents discovered a drug counterfeiting operation that led to criminal convictions.
• (2) It was operated out of the offices of a company of which Press was president.
• (3) Press was convicted in relation to it and spent three years in jail.
• (4) The charges were indictable (not summary), federal (not state-based), and involved conspiracy (one of the most signficant aggravating features an offence can have).
• (5) Following these events, Press was charged again some years later with similar offences and was again convicted.
• Once again, I don't think anyone disputes any of that; the son has, I believe, conceded it. It's a significant course of high-level continuing criminal conduct, which is the same measure I used last month to save the article on James Randall (murderer). I can't see a distinguishing factor here.

Special Pleadings

• Drsjpdc is, in effect, asking nicely for Wikipedia to take down an article about his father that he finds upsetting. I can fully understand his position, but it's specifically contrary to existing policy (see WP:COI and WP:OWN). If Wikipedia itself were to take responsibility and take down the article as an office action, I think that would be a wonderful outcome. But short of that, I can't get behind the idea of reversing policy for a single case. We wouldn't tidy up or remove the Michael Jackson article just because Janet asked nicely and we shouldn't be doing the equivalent here.

Summary

In my opinion, Howard Press passes the bar for notability on two independent grounds and there are no other persuasive reasons for a delete.

Milowent's Response

Thanks for laying that out for me. My basic problem is with a failure to meet Wikipedia:Notability, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."

As to the crimes

There are a few reliable sources that touch briefly on the 1960 arrest and 1961 indictment (the NYTimes articles mention Press' name in two short articles), and that's it. I don't think that's significant coverage. According to the current form of the article, we have no idea whatever happened to the 1961 indictment-it says nothing about conviction in the article for that. And the later legal proceedings in 1965 and 18-count indictment received no press coverage at all, that's coming from court opinions. And Press was never convicted at all on that (though the article says he was) - in fact, the caselaw says he pled guilty and was sentenced to 3 years. Based on the son's comments, he actually only served 18 months (also not addressed in the article). Now, if there were press articles actually covering what happened to Press, we wouldn't be debating these facts at all, we'd just rely on the independent coverage and not be poring over original sources, like trial materials, ourselves.

As to the inventions

There has never been any coverage in reliable sources supporting Press' claim to invent time-release medication. Figuring out what the lawsuit settlements meant is not significant coverage in reliable sources, but really more original research.

Summary

We end up with some possible claims to notability that very few people in the world ever paid attention to. The son wanted us to pay attention, but wikipedia isn't the place for that.--Milowent (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My Reply to Milowent

Well, at this stage I think the best outcome is for me to consider myself done with the AfD. I've made my arguments as eloquently as I can make them. If the result is keep, my arguments are approved and I'm happy, and if the result is delete then an article I have no personal investment in vanishes with no prejudice against recreation, I can be satisfied that an intelligent discussion on the topic was had, and Drsjpdc goes away relieved. Seems win/win. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't speak for me

This comment relates to my (incorrect) claim that Bearian had voted Keep in the 2nd Howard Press AfD.

I was against it in the 2nd AfD, and still argue for its deletion in the 3rd AfD. Bearian (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• My sincere apologies, you're correct. I'd matched your signature up with the wrong comment when I last read the 2nd AfD. I'll go correct that at the current discussion. Didn't intend to put words in your mouth; it was an honest mistake. - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No convictions

Hey Dust, I replied to your most recent comment in the AfD about Press' role in criminal allegations. There was never any trial or any convictions.--Milowent (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks Milowent, have replied over at the AfD. (I'm unable at this stage to rebut your argument, grats!). - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion relates to a query I made about localised spellings on the Far Gate article.

It's fine with me to change those spellings back -- I was merely using Firefox's tool to fix the spelling, and hadn't thought about how things are spelled in other regions. --Teancum (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• No, they're there now, I'll leave them that way. I was just wondering if there was a policy I was unaware of. Thanks! - DustFormsWords (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion relates to a review of the Euclid D. Farnham AfD. In the original AfD I voted Weak Keep, but the result was Delete.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Euclid D. Farnham. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mickmaguire (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks for the notice. Have been and !voted endorse. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• cool - thanks for the input there. While I don't think the delete was done for the right reasons I'm close to being on the fence on whether or not in its existing form it should have been deleted, I find myself tending to agree with you after re-reading the comments on the XfD, it did likely need more references to show notability. It may well come back when I get my hands on them and have enough time to devote to a better effort - it'll be slow though as they will be paper not electronic. Be seeing you Mickmaguire (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion relates to my nomination of the Far Gate article to be featured on Did You Know.

Hello! Your submission of Far Gate at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ucucha 12:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Done, thanks. Hope it's enough. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On November 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Far Gate, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Hassocks5489 (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]