User talk:DoriSmith/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Charles Kettler

Thank you for pointing out that Robert Charles Kettler was a copyright violation. I have completely rewritten the article (and improved/expanded/sourced it while I was at it.) Its pretty much a formality at this point, but would you mind going back and striking your !vote to delete as copyvio? Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This AFD was closed as keep shortly after this comment, so I didn't get a chance to modify my !vote. Note that Kettler US still has many of the same issues, though. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I know it was a hasty revert, but people see the mis-styled titles and "learn" it and it spreads like wildfire. I wanted to retain your edits but I didn't have the time or energy to go through it word by word fixing the episodes whilst the serials and novels. I apologise for reverting, perhaps I should have just said something on your talk page.~ZytheTalk to me! 11:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This is in response to a message I left on his talk page regarding List of Torchwood items. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Suminter India Organics article

Hi Dori,

I'd like to discuss the Suminter India Organics article and continue the associated deletion discussion.

  • In that deletion discussion, one of the arguments brought forward was the notability. Initially, the Wikipedia article didn't mention enough external references. I have since fixed that and added links to articles about the company and its unique business model in a number of online publications. The main counter-argument was the a Google news search didn't yield enough results, although a deeper dive showed that there was quite a bit of coverage. Please help me understand why you don't consider these sources good enough, and if that's the case, what your first class news sources are that make a subject noteworthy.
  • In addition to these articles, the company itself was selected as the first company in India to become an Endeavor entrepreneur. Endeavor's global chairman is Edgar Bronfman, Jr. and its India chairman is Shobhana Bhartia. So this is not just a random designation, it is something meaningful and notable.
  • A few other Endeavor entrepreneurs have Wikipedia pages as well, which just tell a bit of background about the company. Suminter has a lot more content there and I'd be happy to thin it out, but seeing these other entrepreneurs on Wikipedia is an indicated that an Endeavor selection might help with notability. See Officenet, MercadoLibre, and Globant.

ChristophD81 (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied to this at WP:Articles for deletion/Suminter India Organics. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dori, we had by no means reached a consensus, and I'm very confused by the sudden deletion of the article. SpacemanSpiff had acknowledged that the Dare piece is fine as a reliable source signifying notability, so I am very upset about the sudden deletion. Can you please clarify? ChristophD81 (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you don't think there was a consensus. SpacemanSpiff, Shadowjams, Spartaz, and I thought that it should be deleted. You thought it should be kept. "Consensus" doesn't mean "unanimous," so seven days after the nomination it was deleted.
I see that Spartaz has userfied the page and moved it to User:ChristophD81, but I don't see it coming anywhere near meeting GNG. Try this: take just what you can find from verifiable reliable sources and try writing an article solely based on those. My guess is that you'll end up with less than a paragraph, and that's why it doesn't meet the criteria. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 20:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I think there's a difference between notability and the actual content of the article based on verifiable reliable sources. My understanding was that the primary issue about the article was notability, not lack of sources. On the discussion page, I brought up a few articles that cover Suminter exclusively, and I claimed that these cover the notability part as per WP:CORP. Notwithstanding that, there certainly is a lot of work to be done to make all parts of the article compliant with Wikipedia standards. Once the notability question is settled, I'm happy to put work into the article and rewrite/cut it as necessary based -- however, as you can see from the Dare article for example, there is quite a bit of material out there to back up the basic claims made in the article. ChristophD81 (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
What I was trying to do with my suggestion to

take just what you can find from verifiable reliable sources and try writing an article solely based on those.

was demonstrate how little information is out there in those sources, and therefore, have that demonstrate to you that the company isn't notable. If you think that there is sufficient information out there, then go ahead and update the userfied article. But after looking at them, I and several other editors all agreed that that the company just doesn't make the cut. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

MPEG-4 Part 12 - ISO base media file format

Dear Dori Smith, I would like to ask you for an advice, where in the article MPEG-4 should I add informations from article ISO Base media file format (MPEG-4 Part 12) which I requested for creation. The article MPEG-4 is only a junction for Parts of MPEG-4 specification and there is no space for detailed informations about particular formats based on the ISO base media file format, about history of this format in MPEG and about any individual extension over this format defined by other organization - such as 3GPP, 3GPP2, Apple, ITU-T, ETSI, SMPTE and others. As you can see, there are separate articles about MPEG-4 Part 2, MPEG-4 Part 3, MPEG-4 Part 10, MPEG-4 Part 17. I don't understand, why MPEG-4 Part 12 shouldn't be also separate article and why didn't anyone create it till now. In past months I added gross informations about ISO base media file format to articles 3GP, MPEG-4, JPEG 2000, MP4, G.719, Dirac and others. I was motivated because there was usually no mention about ISO base media file format in that articles and there is no separate article about ISO base media file format. So I has to put any piece of information to separate article. There is no article yet, to which anyone can refer, when there is a talk about MPEG-4 Part 12 - ISO base media file format. I would like to expand this article in next months (and I hope, other people will help), but that will need many days of free time. --89.173.68.106 (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't actually know that much about the topic. I saw that your article said "ISO base media file format was specified as ISO/IEC 14496-12", so I looked up "ISO/IEC 14496" and found that it redirected to MPEG-4—which led me to believe that MPEG-4 was the more general article. When I saw that it had a section on MPEG-4 parts, I thought it might fit in there.
You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) at how many AFC suggestions are submitted before the authors look up any of their common terms.
Now that I look into it a little further, I note that 7 of the 23 parts also have their own articles, so another one makes a certain amount of sense. I also see that you've resubmitted it with further detail, so I suspect another editor will come along and turn it into an article in the next few days.
But seriously, with the number of good edits you've made, why don't you just create an account and do it yourself? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 20:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Siva temple in Moscow

Dori , i humbly request to userfy the page Siva temple in Moscow!

You wrote:

After tagging this as a prod, I found that this article was already deleted once via AFD (as seen at WP:Articles for deletion/Место силы В МОСКВЕ). However, I can't tell from that whether or not this contains the same content that was previously deleted—but I'll bet it does.

No, you are wrong! The article is entirely new! I did my best to to write an article conforming to Wikipedia's guidelines, and since it is stated that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves" i believe a consenus can be reached.. I also suggest that this page be merged with Hinduism in Russia. The obsolete Russian Tantra Sangha is present there, while our functioning heir community is not! It is unfair! Do update this page pls! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda14 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

First off, I'm not an admin, so I can't userfy a deleted page. Secondly, if you read that policy in full, it ends with the requirement that "the article is not based primarily on such sources." Your article, as written, was based entirely on blog posts and self-published pages—and as such, it stood no chance of staying in Wikipedia. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

About Unity University College

Dori, I just noticed that this article had been deleted as a copyright violation, & it appears that you were the one who determined that. (Or it was Uninvited Co.? I'm not entirely clear on exactly how it was deleted.) However, AFAIK earlier versions were not violations -- the article was the product of numerous edits from different people -- which is why I restored it from an earlier version. Or was one of these earlier edits also a copyvio? I know there has to be a revision somewhere in its history which does not infringe on copyright & would like to take it back to that version & work from there, rather than lose the article entirely. -- llywrch (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the history of Unity University College, it doesn't show that I ever edited it—did you restore it with only partial history, maybe?
Upon further research, based on User talk:4.155.234.154, it appears that I tagged UUC at the same time I tagged Unity University (16 June 2009), as they were both duplicates of the copyrighted page http://www.uu.edu.et/aboutus.php.
User talk:Meqdim repeatedly recreated UU over the next couple of days, and got blocked for doing that on 18 June 2009. He then changed http://www.uu.edu.et/aboutus.php to include a terms of use link that goes to http://www.uu.edu.et/license.htm—which contains the GNU Free Documentation License. Consequently, he then asked to be unblocked. He was, and UU was restored.
Yesterday, you restored UUC, giving us two articles again on the same subject. After researching all this, I merged the info in UUC to UU, and then made UUC a redirect to UU—giving us one article with everything now (I hope!). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Relevant refs:
I noticed earlier today that you turned UUC into a redirect pointing to UU, as well as a number of related edits yesterday. Is "Unity University" its current name? If so, I'm content to leave things be; if not, well, that's an issue unrelated to copyright violations. My concern here was simply that we had lost otherwise desirable information just because someone slapped a lot of bad content on top of an article. -- llywrch (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The school's home page just says "Unity University", so I think that's the correct way to go. As far as "desirable information" goes, I don't see much in this version that's sourced and encyclopedic, but that's just my take on it (and I don't claim to be an expert). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Well that draft's more useful than a simple sentence "Unity College is the first private college in Ethiopia " :-) Sometimes usefulness is in the eye of the end user. -- llywrch (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Suminter India Organics

Hi Dori,

I've worked on the Suminter article and tried to find verifiable sources for all the claims made (under User:ChristophD81). Let me know whether it now passes the criteria for articles on Wikipedia.

ChristophD81 (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

ChristophD81, I've answered you at User talk:ChristophD81/Suminter India Organics—let me know if you have any questions. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Dori, I added another article that just came out, basically making similar points as the Dare article. Additionally, I'm offering to show you a photo of the Dare magazine, which is not just a blog as the website might suggest. ChristophD81 (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Responded to him here.

SPI case

Thanks for opening the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hemant 17 case. I added some comments and evidence. I'm not certain that two of the users are related to Hemant 17, but including them in the case is perfectly fine. The SPI folks can check it out. I very much appreciate that you took the time to investigate this. Cheers. — CactusWriter | needles 06:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, DoriSmith. I just wanted to follow-up with you on this case. I've received an e-mail from this user acknowledging his other accounts were the ones you listed. He also claimed he didn't know the Exegetic account. The reason I felt that one account wasn't related was because it never added a direct link to EMT and this user's apparent motivation for being here is to promote his EMT website. By the way, I hope you didn't perceive any of my comments at SPI as a criticism of you or your report. That was the farthest thing from my intent. I think you did a great job. Just saying. — CactusWriter | needles 07:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
A few thoughts (hopefully my last on this topic):
  • I have a hard time believing that an anon IP that adds a link to "geocities.com/hemant_thermal/" is entirely unrelated to someone named Hemant.
  • I have a hard time believing that an editor that adds multiple links to bee-india.nic.in (his first and his last edits, for instance) is unrelated to a sock puppeteer that also adds links to BEE and BEE-related companies.
  • Any admin could see that User:Hemant last edited in April 2008, and that therefore a sock puppetry case was a waste of time. I'm not an admin, so I couldn't know that. You are, and yet you asked me to file the case anyway. I'm not sure why, and I don't appreciate my time (not to mention the time of those involved at WP:SPI) being wasted that way.
Anyhow, as I started off saying, I'm hoping that this is the last I have to deal with this mess. Someone really ought to go through all those articles, redirects, and images he created and see what (if anything) is worth keeping, but it won't be me. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ajay Amrit Deletion

Hi Dori

Sorry if this is not the correct place for this discussion.

Please be advised that this is a genuine article:

Please refer to the following sites and search result on google to prove this:

[www.ajaywebsite.com] - this is Ajays Personal Website and has all the activites he is involved in. If you search Ajay Amrit on Google you will see his name in many articles in relation to what is stated in his website.

[www.carvingdream.com] - this is ajays entertainment company

Videos on You Tube from his TV series Bula Bollywood:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Also in relation to the following comment:

Delete No references to meet WP:BIO and a Google search [1] and search of Google News [2] don't turn up any in-depth coverage of Mr Amrit. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

[1] gives the third search result that is Ajay Amrit [2] search on google gives first 5 results that is also related to Ajay Amrit.

Please do not delete this article

Dbau13 (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)DBau13

It sounds like you're laboring under several misapprehensions, so I'll try to straighten them out:
If you have any further questions, feel free to ask me, or anyone else around here. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Note: article was deleted on 25 September 2009.

Koti, India

Hi, just to let you know that twinkle did not complete your AfD nom of the above article, and as it has been tagged for transwiki now, I removed the tag. Feel free to revert if neccesary. regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 17:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks—but is it going to be moved over to Wiktionary? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net

Since you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination), which was closed as "no consensus", you may be interested in a subsequent DRV. Since I disagreed with the close, I contacted the closing admin, who responded, "To be honest, Cunard, I would tend to agree with you, but I am not sure if the balance of things heads to delete rather than no consensus. Listing it at DRV might be a good option here; I won't endorse or oppose the close and will allow the DRV community to decide it. Therefore, I have listed this article at DRV; if you would like to participate, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks—I've added my 2¢ at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net and User:DoriSmith/Bull. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


Would you kindly explain why you chose to spa tag me? I'm not sure whether you looked at my contribs page, but although most of my recent attention has been on this particular thread, I've contributed to other pages in the past. At the very least, a note on my talk page would have been nice. Blowfish (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
At the time I added the {{spa}}:
  • There were two messages on your talk page, neither of which had a response from you, and your history showed that you'd never edited a user page or user talk page. Consequently, I had no reason to believe that you looked at them.
  • You had 49 total contributions to WP.
  • Of those, 21 were in 2005, 9 in 2006, none in 2007, 3 in 2008, and 16 in 2009.
  • Of those, counting just the martial arts-related edits gave me 3 in 2005, 4 in 2006, and 9 in 2009. If you include weight training and combat articles, it becomes 15 in 2005 (out of 21) and 5 in 2006 (out of 9), for a total of 29/49.
  • Looking just at 2009, I see (again, as of when I added the tag) only 3 (very) minor edits to articles and 4 article talk page edits that are unrelated to martial arts. Of the 9 remaining martial arts-related edits, there are three to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Taught Me, three to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination), and three to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2—or in other words, you had made more edits this year to each of these martial arts-related WP:AFDs and WP:DRVs than to any other topic put together.
  • Outside of martial arts, the only article you've had a long term interest in is Talk:Adolf Hitler, which you edited once in 2005 and once in 2009.
Given the above, I thought (and still do think) you had a strong primary focus in martial arts-related articles. And to me, that implied that an {{spa}} was appropriate. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you'll forgive me saying so, this all seems disappointingly arbitrary. If I may paraphrase your argument:
  • I'm not here often enough, and don't keep my little corner of it (user/ talk pages) nice and tidy.
  • If we pick one interest of mine, aggregate with it two very distantly related interests for completely unknown reasons, we get 29/49
  • We then round up and arrive at 100 percent. Presto, single purpose account.
It seems a bit specious. But thanks very much for the response, I appreciate you taking the time. Blowfish (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Gleich

Hi Dori, you flagged this article with several points, and I would like to improve / fix the article.
I have set up the talk page with the points you mentioned. can you help me clear your issues?

Thanks Lscappel (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts

Dori, please be aware that a User has raised a Wikiquette alert about you. See WP:WQA#User Dori and Misleading Assumptions. You are encouraged to respond to the alert. Other members of the WP:WQA community and administrators will respond in the near future. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:DoriSmith/Bull

I have deleted the page as requested. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Dale L Greybill

I found some more refs and removed the prod. I don't think the problem is OR--its just whether it's notable enough under our BLP rules. Technically it meets them--multiple 3rd party sources, multiple events. If you want to send it to AfD, it might not be unreasonable to see what others think, as we are likely to have more of this sort of article. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Business Analysis Body of Knowledge

Hi Dori,

I have just reverted the changes to the 'A Guide to the Business Analysis Body of Knowledge' article - please see reasoning below.

In a nutshell: Business Analysis is the practice of understanding what business problems or needs are to be met by a business change of some kind: software development, business process improvement, or organisation change -- and typically a combination of all three.

This article was about the Body of Knowledge for the business analysis discipline, as defined by the appropriate professional body, the International Institute of Business Analysis. There are plenty of other examples like this, appropriate to their own industries, which can be seen listed in the Body of Knowledge article. Each of these are arguably self-published, and full of jargon peculiar to the relevant industry, but this does not make them unworthy of an article on Wikipedia. Three examples in the same field of work, are:

Please note: when I originally created this article, it had the title 'Business Analysis Body of Knowledge', as this is how the work is normally known -- but another editor correctly pointed out that as this referred to a publication it should use the correct title.

Searching for this using it's normal title of just 'Business Analysis Body of Knowledge' finds:

  • one hit on Google News for this book from the CIO Magazine, a respected IT publication.
  • nineteen hits on Google Books, and they mostly refer to it as the primary source for how business analysis is defined or should be conducted.
  • thirty-eight hits on Google Scholar, which are correctly in the space of IT and business change for the reasons given above.
  • The book itself is available from Amazon, and searching for this on Amazon finds thirteen additional books which reference it.

So, please, if you find some of the references questionable, by all means tag them and offer guidance/explanation to editors less experienced than you.

Greyskinnedboy  Talk  04:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

International Institute of Business Analysis

The article on International Institute of Business Analysis definitely needs tidying up, which work I presume can be safely modelled on the article for associated organisation Project Management Institute? (That is a question, and I welcome comparison and feedback to reach an article that we can all be happy with). Greyskinnedboy  Talk  04:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing
—Kww(talk) 18:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich (2nd nomination)

Thanks for the notification, but the AfD discussion was closed before I was able to participate. Having reviewed the article and the sources, I agree that this individual fails the spirit of Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines, so the article should be deleted. Because the article has been closed as "no consensus", I recommend that you renominate it in a month and notify all the participants of the first AfD, the second AfD, and the DRV on the day that you nominate the article for deletion. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor review archived

Since it has been well over 30 days since you requested to be reviewed, I've gone ahead and archived your request as part of my effort to cleanup Editor Review. You may view your review here. Thanks & happy editing. If you have any questions, please message me on my talk page. =D Netalarmtalk 23:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The Construction Manager‎ url removal

I share the notability concerns, but... why did you drop the urls? "bad" doesn't quite explain, and if dead then wp:dead links would apply.- Sinneed 12:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've answered this at Talk:The Construction Manager‎#Article references and URLs (and their weaknesses). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Human suit recreated as Human disguise

This is a notice to all who participated in the recent AfD of Human suit, here, that resulted in a consensus for delete. This article has been recreated as "Human disguise", and has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human disguise. Thank you. Verbal chat 21:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice; I've added my 2¢. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification of AfD of potential interest.

Hello there, I thought I would draw your attention to this article as you were involved in discussions about its notability: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Guide_to_the_Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge It has been nominated for deletion, feel free to comment on the relevant project page. Happy editing, --Taelus (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice; I've added my 2¢. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit on Alfred Sommer (ophthalmologist)

Hi there, just wondering why you removed the reference about Dr. Sommer having saved approximately 6 million lives. The reference to the book was to serve as a source of the "6 million" figure, not an intention to "spam." If a reliable figure, the "6 million" remark should be included as it helps to illustrate the man's notability.

Why is the cited book "spam" or otherwise unacceptable, and what would you suggest as an alternate, appropriate source? Do you think it would be possible to re-include that reference, or a similar one, if it was worded differently?

Thanks. DeathQuaker (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote over at Akira Endo (biochemist):

Earlier this year, User:April.eye created an account and immediately started spamming WP with articles about, links to, and mentions of Scientists greater than einstein and Scienceheroes.com. All articles and files created by this SPA have since been deleted by a number of admins (see here, here, and here), so now I'm going through and deleting all the book references added by this editor.

The book's claims may or may not be legit; the article on the book (prior to its deletion) mentioned how the numbers were calculated in a vague fashion, but was clear that they definitely did not go through any type of peer review process. As such, and given the non-notability of the book itself as well as the nature of the edits, I figured it was better to just delete the reference. If you find a similar number from a different book (one that's more reliable), add away!

Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 20:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I was not aware that another user had done that, and it's a shame to hear that the reference was misused and overused in that way. I put in that particular reference on the Sommer page, from my own research (I promise I have no other connection to this other person!). I didn't find anything notably untrustworthy with the book myself (at least not on the chapter on Dr. Sommer)--not a scholarly book, but last I checked Wikipedia did not limit itself to scholarly articles; it was simply a convenient resource. Still I will try to find other, more "peer-review" sources should the article need further sources. Thanks again. DeathQuaker (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Law practice management software

Nice copyedit job. I'll try to work more on it. Bearian (talk)

Thanks—it's nice to get some feedback that (for once) isn't "You dirty deletionist!" Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 09:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Stone Sculptor

Hi Dori, Thanks for giving my page the once over, As you can probably see I am very new to these pages, All that I have added is true, My artists statement for example is standard, and used by me on the blog sections of various artist community pages to which I contribute. The quotes from other people were made by them for me to use wherever I want, all of the other stuff has been written by me and used on the same blog spots. I cannot see where a copy right infringment would arise, However I want to keep my WIKI page, and I dont want to break any rules,If you have a moment I would appreciate your advice. Thanks again, Christopher Stone,Nachette (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied to this at User talk:Nachette#Autobiographies on Wikipedia, although before I replied, he'd already gone and re-created it. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Simon Lindh

Hello, few days ago I was monitoring Commons user Parenti93 uploads of images that were violating copyrights. Now it comes to my attention that this user may be a sockpuppet of Commons and English wikipedia User:Simon Lindh. Also I saw your concern over this user Userpage where it seems all content is taken from Andy Roddick article, just names and references to Sweden are changed. I am not familiar with en:wiki policy and guidelines, so want to ask you to re-evaluate this user talk page and if necessary raise this issue. Thank you --Justass (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

sigh… It appears that he's a sockpuppeteer here as well.
I've just nominated his user page for deletion here, which is all that can be done for now. I'm not an admin, so this is as far as I can take it.
Best of luck! Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 09:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA

You're a 4 year editor with < 6k edits, and I like your edit history from what I can see.

I don't want to be a nominator, but I think you would make an excellent administrator from everything I've seen. If it ever comes to that point please let me know. Shadowjams (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

freda cruse atwell

looking for any help you can give as I am very new to this.. I am Trying to clean up the site and seem to be getting no where rather quickly. an hints you can give?Jandd7173 (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to as "Trying to clean up the site"—We're both trying to clean up the Freda Cruse Atwell article, I hope.
As for your recent edits to that article, I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish. So far as I can tell, all you did was:
  • Remove the year from the {{unreferencedBLP}}, breaking the format.
  • Remove the {{autobiography}} without saying why you thought it didn't apply.
  • Remove the {{notability}} without saying why you thought it didn't apply.
  • Remove the {{or}} without saying why you thought it didn't apply.
That's not cleanup—that's vandalism. If you have sourced information that you want to add to the article, go right ahead (it desperately needs it). But removing tags and/or adding unsourced information doesn't help.
One question for you, given that you've been an editor on WP for 9 months, but this is the only article you've ever touched: do you have any kind of relationship with the article's subject? If so, you should read WP:COI before making any further edits. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 07:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

List of United States television series cancelled or ended after 2004 season

Should have being included in the AFD although the article which is basically nothing really different then those deleted was created on the 27th so less then 48 hours before the AFD was opened so likely the nominator didn't notice this one. Any US TV series list similar to those deleted should be proposed for deletion or go to WP:AFD with the closing AFD as reference. You can nominate it if you want, since being the closer for avoiding any issues I should not myself open the AFD or prodded the article (s) nor it is a speedy deletion candidate either. --JForget 21:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: this is in reply to my query here. It sounds like there's some drama here, and I don't care that much, so I'm not going to bother. 07:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Medical Travel Riga

Hi, again please review this user page, cos it's advertisement in clear form :) Already deleted this user page on Commons --Justass (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Not an admin, so there's not much I can do except nominate it for deletion—which I've now done. All credit for the speedy deletion goes to MrKIA11 (see immediately below) who took care of it. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 07:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Art nouveau Riga.jpg

I'm not that familiar with image policies, but {{db-nowcommons}} states that the duplicate image must be in the same format. I don't know if the image falls under some other deletion criteria. If I'm missing something, please let me know. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

They are in the same file format (jpeg); it's just that the one on commons is mislabeled as a tiff. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't even think that was possible. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

RFA?

I was looking at your contributions closely and I feel that you are well-qualified for WP:RFA. Are interested in a nomination? Thanks Secret account 14:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the vote of confidence! Right now though, I don't have the time that an RFA would require.
If you have any advice for me, or if you see me do something in the future that changes your opinion of my qualifications, let me know, please? And again, thanks! Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 10:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Mohammed Sami Abugoush

hi dori please note that all ( mohammed sami abugoush) designs and photos are made by me and i post them on wiki for the purpose of article editing only i am new in wiki and i need help in this. thanks --Diamondexpert 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)diamonexpert--Diamondexpert 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondexpert (talk • contribs)

All of Mohammed Sami Abugoush's designs are by you? Does that mean that you are Mohammed Sami Abugoush? If yes, then you shouldn't be trying to add an article about him/you. If you aren't, does he know that you've duplicated his designs and put them on WP with no rights reserved? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 10:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
HI DORI
I hereby affirm that I am [OR: COPYRIGHT HOLDER'S NAME is MOHAMMED SAMI ABUGOUSH ] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK, [ EITHER included in this emailOR located online at LINK
I agree to publish that work under the free license (SPECIFY THE TYPE OF LICENSE HERE) [ SEE BELOW ].
I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
SENDER'S NAME AND DETAILS (to allow future verification of authenticity)
SENDER'S AUTHORITY (copyright-holder, director, appointed representative, etc)
[ On behalf of COPYRIGHT HOLDER'S NAME A Mohammed Sami Abugoush
I ALREADY SEND EMAIL TO SUCH ADDRESS IN COMPLIANCE WITH WIKI RULLS
Diamondexpert 13:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)DIAMOND EXPERT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondexpert (talk • contribs)
Unfortunately, I have no idea what that all means, although I'm sure OTRS does. But beyond that, I notice that you didn't answer my question: are you Mohammed Sami Abugoush? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
It's interesting that in this post he claims to be a newspaper editor and writer who contacted Abugoush so he is not the same person. On the other hand, the post above implies he is the copyright holder for those images which would be very odd as those images would be expected to be the property of Abugoush. How curious. -- Whpq (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
From that diff:

Mohammed Abugoush is well known person in lots of middle east diamond business , i was search the net one day to write article for new york time news paper about diamond and gold business in Middle east i was amazed about the amount of information i collect about him, so i called him by phone and i took his permit to write and i got some personal info from him, i start to write until i reach the wall of deletion , i ask you why?

For some reason, I find myself having trouble WP:AGF about several parts of that single sentence—not to mention why a New York Times writer would create an account named Diamondexpert. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 18:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DoriSmith/Archive_6&oldid=1142973653"