User talk:Domminico

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Domminico, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC) lolz[reply]

Category:American liberals[edit]

Hey Domminico -- on categorization in Category:American liberals, please see discussions at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#people by political belief and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 19#Category:American liberals. --lquilter 14:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Patricia Jacobs[edit]

A tag has been placed on Patricia Jacobs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Whispe ring 05:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good day. I've gone through and speedily deleted all of your articles on scientists created last night because there was no assertion as to why the scientists are sufficiently notable to warrant articles. I'm no expert in the field, but the articles really were too short to justify their notability so I decided to remove them from the encyclopedia. Thank you for your understanding. —Sean Whitton / 11:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I see all were FRS and therefore notable, will continue this discussion on your talk page. Best Domminico (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 12:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Society Fellows[edit]

See my comments at:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Mass speedy deletion of Fellows of the Royal Society (permanent link)

I just restored the following 30 articles:

I would ask that you deletion-proof (by adding references) and flesh these articles out to at least a paragraph as soon as you can. You may find Google News' archive search a useful tool. You may find it useful to add the refToolbar button to your editing toolbar; you can just go to "my preferences", select "Gadgets", then check the refTools box. (If you're just adding a reference at the end of an article, you can strip off the <ref>and </ref> tags after creating the citation.

Thanks! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, also, feel free to work from & expand List of Fellows of the Royal Society. — Scientizzle 02:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good work! -- and advice about it[edit]

I want to personally thank you for your work in adding the essential pages being discussed above. It is unfortunate that there is an attitude in Wikipedia that makes the advice A. B. gave above necessary--although, according to our rules stubs are acceptable even if not referenced, nonetheless incomplete articles are apt to be marked for deletion. It's well to write them off line first, though it is absolutely not required, it serves to satisfy those who delete new articles immediately rather than allow time for them to be finished. As for people not recognizing the FRS to be notability, although according to our uniform practice is full evidence for notability, the attitude that does not readily admit academic things as important prevails here among many editors. I and the others (all respected editors here, some, like myself, administrators) who have--as you see--rushed to defend these articles and your work on them, will help to the fullest extent we can, yet it is better to avoid troubles of this sort. Incidentally, there's a useful tag, {{underconstruction}} , to add to the top of incomplete articles which is at least supposed to hold off deletion tagging for a week or two. DGG (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Daniela Rhodes[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Daniela Rhodes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 14:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not notifying you myself. In three years on Wikipedia, I've probably suggested the deletion of less than five articles, and I just forgot about the proper ettiquette. Unschool (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of A good degree[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article A good degree, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. PamD (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Simonyi Professors of the Public Understanding of Science[edit]

Template:Simonyi Professors of the Public Understanding of Science has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. 72.244.200.43 (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Domminico! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 6 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 941 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Patricia Simpson - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Brigid Hogan - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Mary Rees - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Judith Howard - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Veronica Van Heyningen - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Eleanor Dodson - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks![edit]

Hi Domminico, I was poking around tonight looking for some biographies to work on and started looking at female Fellows of the Royal Society, which led me to working on Jan Anderson (scientist), which led me to this ridiculous discussion, and I just wanted to say (4 years after the fact) -- thanks for creating all of those articles and for hanging in there -- it is much appreciated :) best, phoebe / (talk to me) 03:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]