Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:56, 7 July 2010

home	Talk Page	Workshop	Site Map	Userboxes	Edits	Email

Coming here to ask why I reverted your edit? Read this page first...

Please leave me new messages at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new section at the bottom. I usually notice messages soon. I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply. If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, or I'm slow to reply, feel free to approach me here.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

You can email me from this link but in the interests of Wiki-transparency, please message me on this page unless there are pressing reasons to do otherwise. Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, flame baiting, or that are are excessively rude may be deleted without response. If I choose not to answer, that's my right, don't keep putting it back. I'll just delete and get annoyed at you.

Anunnaki

My apologies. I deleted that prematurely without finding the proper sources to refute. NJMauthor (talk)

RE: "were blessed with" crusade

Would you mind taking a look at this, and the few edits preceeding it?

Yongle the Great again

I believe User:Peter I the Great is another sock of Yongle the Great again. I checked his contributions log, and as I expected, he's editing articles on the Ming Dynasty again. He gave himself away once more by choosing an "emperor" username. This time, it's Peter I of Russia. 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 13:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I gave him a welcome template and a request to use edit summaries. I did make a mistake once, don't want to do that again, but I agree and have been watching him. Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

He's really a pain in the ass. Is there any way to permanently block him from editing? 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 13:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

A range block would help - he uses a lot of IP addresses, but range blocks can catch up innocent editors. I'll ask Tim Song. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Here're some defining characteristics of Yongle the Great that may come in handy when we're looking out for his sockpuppets:

• Edits articles related to the Ming Dynasty
• Usually uses a Chinese emperor's or any other famous historical ruler's name as his username, but there are also exceptions, such as "2008 Summer Olympics", "14 Blades"
• Sometimes makes drastic changes to certain articles, including replacing references

暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 14:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh

...but isn't "Gratuitous Self Promotion" (usually GSP502) a core course in almost every prestigious non-accredited degree-granting institution graduate program? *snicker* (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Routerone

How about you pay attention? I haven't posted on his talk page since he had his little tantrum ... he still feels free to not only post on my talk page, but also to re-factor it as the mood strikes him. Duke53 | 16:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I am paying attention. My point was that you were posting on his talk page today and he was posting on yours. Any ban should be an interaction ban on both of you. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it was the 25th, but the point still holds. Any interaction ban should be on both of you. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no real difference between 06/25/10 and 07/01/10. I guess my point is the one that still holds: pay attention. Duke53 | 17:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What solution do you propose then? Sarcasm isn't a solution. You two won't play nice with each other so you need to avoid each other. I'm not the only one who thinks so. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Teesta Setalvad

Hi, Thank you for the message you sent me regarding specific terms and conditions for BLP. I have gone through them as you suggested and I understand how regulating this sort of thing is important especially on open and free software. I appreciate that your comments and concerns are extremely valid in upholding the integrity of the website. It is for this reason that I would like to request you to perhaps give me some more detailed advice on this specific page. I am the first person to admit that it is indeed a touchy topic and understood in the Indian context its not surprising why. To give you a bit of background information, this a sensitive topic in India that isn't talked about very much. Moreover, this being a political issue there are very few who actually voice their opinions. A google search will reveal how much defamatory and misconstrued information actually exists on the person in question. In addition, the cause which the person has devoted her life to is one that has been abandoned or simply ignored by the vast majority of people especially the media in India. This makes it quite difficult to gather a significant amount of external references for each bit of information that I have tried to include in the page. In fact, the reason I posted this in the first place was in an attempt to make detailed, correct information about this person readily available on the internet. Through a variety of online media like blogs etc, I have been volunteering a few hours of my time a week to spread more awareness on Teesta Setalvad and Citizens for Justice and Peace. The wikipedia page that I tried to edit is also rife with misinformation or de-contextualized information. I understand fully that the wikipedia's primary mandate is verifiability, and I particularly grateful for some of the really great pieces on the website, it is my one-stop for a quick overview of things. Which is why, I would be extremely grateful if you could assist me with this page given the complex nature of information. I am happy to remove whatever words you feel are too charged to be neutral, and re-work it, but I feel that you are certainly better placed to give me some helpful advice about this. I know its not your job to edit what I have written, and I am certainly not asking you to make any exceptions or compromise your work ethic for this, but I would truly appreciate it if you could help me out so that this page can be a source of accurate and complete information without violating any wikipedia norms. Best Regards, GD Gayatridivecha (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else to do....

Hello, Dougweller... I appreciate your consideration and words some time ag, to me and "Novaseminary". You were right on the mark. Both of us were not perfect, but I'm glad you see that Nova is obviously being spiteful and out-of-line with me. (And the Admin "B" was also correct a few weeks ago, and warned Nova to knock it off.....B warned both of us. But B doesn't want to have anything to do with this anymore....I don't blame him.) Nova keeps edit warring with me. (And even has stalked me, on his watchlist.....as Admin B acknowledged.)

He has not stopped. It has to do with this article "Separated brethren" that he never even wanted to be there to begin with. He second-guesses EVERYTHING I do, and starts edit wars and reverts. I put in simple modifications, NOT "reverts", but he'll run now to board pages CLAIMING they're "reverts", force-fitting it that way conveniently and dishonestly, SIMPLY TO GET ME BLOCKED. I can't deal with it anymore. I feel on edge every time I try to edit that article now. KNOWING that Nova will inevitably come in AND UNDO AND CHANGE EVERYTHING I PUT IN. For real.

The problem with Nova is that he WANTS me blocked no matter what.

I don't think I technically violated 3RR as those were basically (if you check carefully) UNRELATED edits, and just simple modifications. Not all were related "reverts" in that sense.

But here's the clincher....Nova requested on the Talk page that I remove the word "mainstream" and put something else, otherwise he'd notify the board....WELL I GRANTED HIS REQUEST BEFORE I EVEN KNEW HE WENT TO THE BOARD. He never gave me a chance.

Below is pasted the last two exchanges in the article Talk page...and see what's up here, please read it carefully.

This shouldn't be personal, Sweetpoet. We are only talking about a few imprecise words. I don't think any of the editors editing today actually disagree on substance. Please self-revert your edits so I do not have to report you, Sweetpoet. Some word other than "mainline" or "mainstream" should be used, per my edit history. "Mainstream" most often refers to specific Protestant denominations, per Mainline Protestant. More than just these groups are considered separated brethren, so limiting it in this way (which I don't think you mean to do anyway) is inaccurate. Further, Sweetpoet is the only editor who has inserted "officially". It was actually not me who removed it earlier today in the first instance. So as to not violate 3RR myself, I will not revert again. Novaseminary (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

ok, to keep some semblance of peace and civility, I granted your request. I removed "mainstream" and put in the word "most." But to be honest, I'm not sure why you have this thing against the word "Mainstream" as I see you removed it also from the other part of the article. Why???? Your thing is that "evangelicals" are not considered "mainstream"? Well maybe, there's a case there, but sometimes it's in the eye of the beholder too, and not so black and white. My only point about "mainstream" is that per that paragraph, "Mormons" ARE CONSIDERED "PROTESTANT".....but NOT "mainstream Protestant." It was simply clearer and contextual to the paragraph.

As for "officially", I'm sorry, there's NO good reason at all to remove that one, because as I said, it should be made clear to the reader that it's actually an OFFICIAL Catholic view that "Mormons" are not "separated brethren" and are "polytheist" and "nontrinitarian", and is not just the view maybe of some individual Roman Catholic apologists. You MIGHT have a point about the word "mainstream" (maybe)......but the word "officially", I'm sorry, there's really no excuse or reason to remove that. Anyway, like I said, I don't think I actually violated 3RR per se, as they were mostly unrelated edits in a way, but to keep civility and respect and courtesy, I did what you asked. See how it looks now. Sweetpoet (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, I granted his request, but he never gave a chance to even see it, but ran to this page (hastily and neurotically and spitefully) ANYWAY....

the Admin "B" knows about Nova's antics, and warned Novaseminary a couple of weeks ago to stop this with me, otherwise he'd be banished. He warned both of us......two to tango. But Nova continues doing this with me, STARTING EDIT WARS.....wanting me to get in trouble, manipulating things where I look bad, running to boards, and trying to have it where he comes out smelling like a rose, and just to hurt me...

(you should see the nonsense he did with me with something that had nothing to do with him, with another editor in the Columbus article, where it showed that Nova was STALKING me....on his watchlist.....just like how he even now makes biased references to what I do on other people's talk pages, assuming automatically that I must be in the wrong in those cases, where those other people must be totally perfect.....rank bias....Admin "B" told him he was out of line, and to stop bothering with me.....Nova does not stop.)

Anyway, if I did violate 3RR, it was TOTALLY UN-INTENTIONAL.....but in reality, I don't think I actually did in that sense, because for instance the changing of the word "orthodox" was not even related to the other edits before that, but was a new and separate edit, in a way. Also, the first one was not even a revert, but simply a modification because of incorrect grammar. Again, it becomes obvious that Nova WANTS me to violate 3RR to simply get me blocked.

And again too, even after I granted his request and pretty quickly I did too...he still goes to this board page. What does that say of him and his integrity and word? Nobody's perfect. I know I'm not. But Nova does not seem to think he does ANYTHING wrong or out of bounds. Admin "B" does not agree with Nova though. Anyway, sorry for the trouble here, and thanks for your patience. Sweetpoet (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyway.....if you haven't already....see the page Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thanks. Sweetpoet (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? 5 minutes after acknowledging the message about forum shopping on my talk page, you forum shop on another admin's talk page? The appropriate forum for this issue is WP:AN3, not an individual admin's talk page. --B (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, really, because you yourself said you were not dealing with it, and you showed no interest. You didn't even read what I wrote carefully and blatantly mis-quoted me, and left things I said completely out. I wanted someone I could trust seeing this matter. And Doug knew about the situation too. Why are you maligning what I did as "forum shopping"? I simply went to another Admin who knew the matter, CUZ YOU SHOWED NO INTEREST......as you said you "recused" yourself. What of it? I simply wanted someone who was familiar a little bit. I see no WP policy that says that what I did by asking an Admin I know to check out the situation is a violation. Yes, the board page, which is where I mainly wrote anyway.... But I'm not sure what the big deal is with what I did as I see many other editors in general "forum shopping" or going to Admins they may know or have dealt with. I meant no harm. But it's a closed matter now......peace out. (And Doug, sorry for all this nonsense....but for REAL.....put 80% of the blame on Novaseminary....and 10% on "B" as he didn't even read what I wrote on both the Article , and actually mis-quoted me big time, and also 10% on me, as I tend to react to insanity with my own insanity at times...Nobody's perfect.)

It's a closed matter now, as another Administrator determined the thing already. I'm tired of all this at this point. I don't like being second-guessed by some stalker editor at every turn....it's stressful and demoralizing. Anyway, Doug...thanks for your patience. Sweetpoet (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking

I noticed you were pretty quick to delete the page I nominated for speedy deletion as advertising, so I was hoping you could tell me if I used the courtesy blanked template appropriately here; I just filed a thread on editor assistance asking this same question but since you've seen how I used it, I hope that you can let me know if this was correct or not; I'm a fairly experienced contributor but have never used that template before, but felt it best to play it safe and check for next time afterwards. GiftigerWunsch 13:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Good question, and I think a good idea although I don't know of anything specifically about doing it in this context. I was just working through my dashboard. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Grand Unified Theory

Since you and ArglebargleIV were interacting with Dale Ritter at Talk:Grand Unified Theory, can I trouble you to look at Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests#Request for Clarification of 'Grand Unified Theory' Page Content Policy? It's beyond me, a mere mathematician. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit - yes.

Druid - what do mean that is not a copyedit? You have wholesale eliminated every change I made without consideration if they were good, bad or indifferent. So what's your definition of a copyedit? And also, this is a Wiki and you seem to be owning that article. I am going to reinstate my change , and more. Lancashire Druid (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This describes copyediting. Misplaced Pages:Basic copyediting. No one owns the article, and this one gets a lot of vandalism, addition of unsourced or badly sourced material or material that doesn't meet our criteria at WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome note. I think most of what I did would constitute copyediting. Maybe adding a fact tag wouldn't. I'll work through the whole article later for some more copyediting. Lancashire Druid (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Something you should know

Please tell me which administrator is responsible for Bronze Age articles about Middle East? Those articles can be described in one simple word - DISASTER! :( First, there are many factual errors. Second, there is no any consensus about chronology; some Wikipedians use long chronoglogy, some middle, and some short, so there is complete chronological mess - dates can varry +/- 120 years! Third, there is category problem also; I saw very useless (& nonexisting) categories for ancient empires (example: Akkadian Empire) like "2200 BC disestablishments" - schoolars are not agreed did that empire collapsed in 23th or 22th century, so even something like "22th century BC disestablishments" wouldn't be enough precise. In any case, first point is typical while third point is easy, but for "long/middle/short chronology problem" you should organize some serious "Wiki aministrators discussion" and find some agreement. I also noticed that many foreign languages Wikis copied wrong & contradict dates so problem is even deeper... Cheers, --93.143.27.175 (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)(Orijentolog)

No one is responsible for any particular article or group of articles, although there are collaborative wiki projects dealing with groups of articles. Ancient Egypt articles have the same chronological problems although I think one editor has been working on that. I'll copy this to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ancient Near East which is the best place. It doesn't help also that we get nationalist wars on some of these articles. Which categories are you thinking of? I can see 2 redlinks that I can't get rid of for some reason. I agree with you completely. Dougweller (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I left my comment on upper discussion link:

_________________________________

My suggestion is compulsory using acronyms like SC, MC or LC for short, middle or long chronology respectively after absolutely ever year, otherwise it would always be a complete mess. I found useless categories on this links also:

• Urartu
• Hittites
• States and territories established in 297 BC (cat)

Don't think only Misplaced Pages has chronological problems, I also found it on reputable academic encyclopedias like Iranica, example is begin of Epartid Elamite dynasty / end of Third dynasty of Ur:

• This article says "2004 B.C.E." (according middle chronology)
• This article says "1,940 B.C." (according short chronology)

Note: Dating differences between short, middle or long chronology are 0/-64/-120 years.

_________________________________

In meanwhile, you can correct three links above (useless cats). At this moment I'm very into 2 millenium BC (because I wrote articles for my academic work) so I'm glad to help. :) --93.143.56.206 (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)(Orijentolog)

Comments on Hero's RfA

Thought I'd extract this from the mess that is WQA, as it's a bit irrelevant there. MF is being a git (as usual) but he didn't actually call Hero a paedophile, no matter how you dice it up. I have no idea why Keepscases comments weren't revdeleted - Fences only removed them from view. I guess it depends on who you know - or how unpopular the person saying it is (pace Off2riorob being blocked). Nothing has been done about Balloonman's comments on the talkpage either. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, take the whole issue to ANI or AN? Or? There really should be some consistency. I deleted something similar because the editor was concerned about real life consequences of even an obviously stupid accusation like this because they were going to have a job involving contact with children. Dougweller (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I pointed it out at ANI and no-one is interested. I pointed it out to BubbaHotep at WQA too. It would be hard to remove the comments now, as there are so many intervening edits, and (as BHotep did point out) any action taken against an editor now would be punitive not preventative. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI#User:ThomasK

Heads up :) S.G. _ping! 10:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

cummins Uk

No probs with you (or indeed the marketing manager, although he would have to watch for COI!!) removing the prod. All the hits I got were for the parent company, and I thought it odd that cummins inc didn't have an article (you're going to tell me it does, aren't you LOL ). Teach me to try NPP while still focused on the PED gig. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, Cummins - I've weeded copyvio out of both. I'm not sure if the UK one should be a redirect to the parent company or not. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr Rachael Faye Hill Page

Hi Doug, just wondering why you deleted the wiki entry on Dr Rachael Faye Hill? She was widely reported in the International media as being the youngest person to ever graduate from medical school in the UK and will be the youngest practising doctor. Because she graduated so young, medical schools in the UK are considering lowering their age of entry requirements to allow other young people in - surely this is a notable article? The deletion reason stated was that the article was about a person but did not say why the person was important/significant... this was explained throughout the article.

MartinManson (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think being the youngest makes her notable. I didn't see anything in the article about lowering age of entry requirements. Did I miss something? By the way, new sections should be at the bottom of my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a few articles about "the youngest doctor" etc... Here is one - http://en.wikipedia.org/Heenal_Raichura Dr Hill has just beaten this girl who was previously the youngest doctor. I think it is pretty notable, especially as she made the international press and could sway government legislation and has beaten a record that was previously held by someone else.... I hadn't got to that bit yet about the government... you guys were too quick to delete it! MartinManson (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point your attention to this previous Wiki deletion case where the same topic was covered but moderators decided that the article had achieved good coverage from reliable sources - http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heenal_Raichura

Due to this, I believe this article should be reinstated.

MartinManson (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jeff - as Jeff has just shown the Other Stuff Exists argument can be used as a way of creating consistency across Misplaced Pages in regard to the types of articles that are both kept and deleted. As such, by applying the Other Stuff Exists argument the Wiki entry on Dr Rachael Faye Hill should stay as a previous discussion occured on the same topic and the previous article was voted to stay.

MartinManson (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you being sarcastic? Because that would mean that we would have to abandon all our core policies - you're saying 'take the worst as the standard'. What I see now is that we could theoretically have a succession of articles 'this is the youngest', 'no, this is the youngest'. Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I am inclined to agree - I do think that the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument can be used here. We cannot ignore the fact that another article on Misplaced Pages has passed an afd process and due to this the article should be kept. CrazyMiner (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The new on is at AfD. Both claims are wrong, the youngest doctor was 19 - ok, that was 1815, but that shouldn't matter. I'd say that the prospect of even more 'youngest doctor' articles suggests that the first AfD was wrong. Dougweller (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, however unfortunately the statement in regard to the previous afd decision being wrong was decided by the majority as being an article of interest and should be kept - as such your statement can only be taken as your opinion on the matter. CrazyMiner (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure it's just my opinion, hence the word 'suggests' - I assumed it would be read 'suggests to me'. Dougweller (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Teesta again

Thanks for your reply. Will go through BLP and make changes. Also, can you please ensure that any mention of Teesta's family is removed since this is very sensitive information that we typically monitor online. Thanks a million, Gayatridivecha (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You need some glasses

http://www.google.ro/search?hl=ro&client=firefox-a&hs=kxP&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Clearly%2C+there+is+a+bit+of+correct+history+in+Anonymous+work%2C+and+at+least+a+few+o+site%3Aeprints.ucl.ac.uk&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Are you happy now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzsolt (talk • contribs) 09:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre. I searched the pdf, I don't know what happened. Apologies. Still, rudeness isn't a good idea and I don't know why you deleted the links I gave you. Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Cummins UK page - new entry - Not sure what to do..?

Hi Dougwella,

Thank you for your talk. I am having problems writing this article from an encylopediatic format because i thought it was, obviously incorrectly! Can you please help me - Cummins UK has not had much press or references statements in the past and I can't find much information written about them, which hasn;t been written by Cummins.

Not sure what i can do to improve!! It doesn't have to be much words but I definitely want Cummins UK as a company to have a presence on Misplaced Pages....

Thanks!

Harvy

Harvymoore (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I know you posted on my talkpage as well, but I thought I'd answer here to save Dougweller duplicating what I say. Misplaced Pages isn't a directory or listings site (see WP:NOT for a whole raft of things Misplaced Pages isn't). It's an encyclopaedia, and things have to be notable to get into it. There is an article on the parent company - Cummins. If you can't find enough sources for a standalone article, you could make your article part of the Cummins article.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Layerbit

Hello Dougweller,

Just wanted to see if I could get a little more information about the deletion. This was my first submission so I would like to clean it up and resubmit it but I am not sure exactly what went wrong. Thank you for any help.

Kevin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinclubman (talk • contribs) 13:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess the first question is are you affiliated with the company? But the main thing is that it read like a brochure. "revolutionized the design process", etc, all unsourced or sourced only from the firm itself. It needs to pass our criteria at Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies). Read that carefully and see if you think it does. See WP:RS for our criteria for reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

ANDRÉ DU NAY

why does he have a dubious reputation? (Karpatia1 (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC))

For being inaccurate. Do the Google books search I suggested. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The author is cited here too http://en.wikipedia.org/Pannonian_Romance

I did the google books search http://www.google.com/search?q=andre+du+nay&btnG=Search+Books&tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1 and and I don't really understand what I should have found... can you give me pls a more detailed explanation?

PS The other account is mine too. I did not know it is lllegal to have 2 accounts. I will give up the other account(Karpatia1 (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC))

Ok, thanks. I've gone into more detail on the article's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be so insistent, but you said the contested work of an anonymous author written over 30 years, and the work seems to be from 1996 http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/dunay.I/dunay00.htm. In addition, it belongs to Library of Congress (USA), so it is not a dubious book.

And don't see where it is written that Andre du Nay is a pseudonym. Which do you say is his real name? (Karpatia1 (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC))

Garifuna

Just wanted to let you know that we had an edit conflict on this page. Please let me know if you object to the changes I have made. I did not go back and repeat the substitution of Garifuna with an accent on the i, for the unaccented one. I was incorporating material from Nancie Gonzales' book Sojourners of the Caribbean into the text, which struck me as being more accurate and reliable than the material in the present article.Beepsie (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, edit summaries. Sorry, I was caught up in the moment as I often am--I will be more attentive in future. However, I was unaware of editing out a citation, which is something I try very hard to avoid.Beepsie (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, not a problem, thanks for the quick reply. Edit summaries are really important in my opinion. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)