User talk:DragonflySixtyseven/Archive06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

In berry

You are spot on. Thanks for taking the trouble. GrahamBould 10:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

New Song!

Hii!

I am back with another song..! Although this time it was only me and my brother. I played the guitar (everything including the rhythm and the solo :-P and my bro wrote the lyrics and also did the vocals. the songs called Out of Focus. Give it a listen if ya can and leave your thoughts on it. :-)

Heres the links for both streaming and direct downloading:

Stream it

Direct Download from Geocities

Thanks a lot!

Cheers!

P.S.: I didnt wanna clutter your talk page by pasting the lyrics even though they are a little hard to understand due to the quality of the recording. Gimme a shout if you want the lyrics or if you have any problems while listening. Thanks a lot again!

Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 17:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Colbertology

Colbertology has fallen into common usage since Colbert first used it on his show. Other terms coined by Stephen Colbert such as truthiness are obviously commonly used, as evidenced by the recent usage of truthiness by Oprah. As a field of science or academic expertise (evidenced by the -logy suffix), it deserves a Wikipedia entry so that it can be explained in full detail as any other science (see Physics, Rheology, etc).

LuckyOliver

Hi, can you give me some advice on how to redo the LuckyOliver article so it isn't seen as 'apparent spam'? I thought it was pretty informational without being pushy or salesy, and I took a look at how some of the other stock photography places had their entries before posting--but it was my first post and I'd like to figure out how to improve on future ones. Thank you.

Your comment

Hi and thanks for taking the time to communicate your views. I appreciate your position, but I stand by my comments and will not be withdrawing them. People can easily decide for themselves whether they trust my judgement or not. Given that numerous people voting in the RFA have cast votes on the basis of Elonka's interactions with DreamGuy, my comments are directly relevant to the discussion. This is particularly important now that DreamGuy has apparently returned to the project, and is already harrassing and abusing people, just like he has in the past. Concerning the allegation I posted, I've already offered to communicate privately with admins who want to independently confirm the names of those I'm aware of who share my opinion - but so far I haven't heard from anybody - so I can only assume it can't be as big a concern as some people have made out. --Gene_poole 00:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A humble request for your opinion

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. Recently, you expressed an oppose opinion with regards to my RfA. I would like to thank your feedback on this but I need another critical feedback from you. If you could spare a few minutes to voice any concerns you may be having with regards to my contributions to this project since my last RfA on this page, I would be most grateful. Once again, thank you for your time! --Siva1979Talk to me 05:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


Muschihausen

Hello! This stub was not a "hoax", restore, please! I want to add some more informations and sources. Thank you, --Harter Stoss vonhinten 11:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The lighted path

Hi. Do you know about Diwali? I wish you All The Best on the ocasion of the Indian festival of light, Diwali. I am sure that the light of hope, confidence, and all positive attributes shall always remain inside you – lighting your path and guiding you to attain higher and higher levels of excellence in all your endevours! And, ID Mubarak too. All the best! --Bhadani 17:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I could not do anything about the local sources required by you. I also forgot to wish you on your festival of light. --Bhadani 17:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh I know you know about Diwali. Last year we exchanged greetings. --Bhadani 17:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Award

I, Garion96, award you this Public Domain astronaut for the very fast work with the copyvio's on this list. Garion96 (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I, Garion96, award you this Public Domain astronaut for the very fast work with the copyvio's on this list. Garion96 (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Brandt's Tool

I'm sure it's useful, but he's more interested in using it to bash us instead of fix things. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OpenSDE

Hi, i would like to know why the article about OpenSDE was removed without previous discussion or warning. there are many other open source projects on wikipedia, some with even less developers than OpenSDE (with 9 world wide currently).

the project at sourceforge is not even the same, that's a clinical system made for windows, ours is a framework to help distribution maintainers to found their projects. this week two persons joined our project because they found it at wikipedia...

btw, i didn't add the entry on wikipedia, it was a user which was quite happy with it. and the project we forked from T2 SDE has an even less wikified article than the stub we had.

thanks, Alejandro Mery 15:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


thanks a lot for undeleting it ,-) Alejandro Mery 16:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Link to spam site

I was just using that as an example. Sorry if it caused a malicious response. Don't ever work for that company. Corporate fudiciary 16:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"Plagiarism"

It is a horrible idea to remove material from Wikipedia just because of "anti-plagiarism bot". If the same thing appears on Wikipedia and on some other website, it is far more likely that the material was copied from Wikipedia.

Any "anti-plagiarism bot" that doesn't check article history is going to generate so many false positives to be close to useless.

If you want to fight plagiarism using such bot, please take time to look at article history - if it is indeed copied from other website, all "plagiarized" material will appear at once, in form identical to that website. That's still not certain indication of "plagiarism" as they may both come from a third source, but if you cannot find a single edition which added all "plagiarized" text, then do not remove it.

If the allegedly "plagiarized" text was built gradually, then it is absolutely certain that plagiarism was the other way. Nobody is plagiarizing one sentence at time, first copying with slightly different grammar, and only later (and from different account) getting it closer to the source etc.

I've only checked one article you "cleaned" - Henryk Sienkiewicz. And we're definitely the source - the article including allegedly "plagiarized" part was build by many small additions and changes. They copied it from Wikipedia. Taw 18:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


About My Errors

Thank you for all your help! Yes, you can delete that RfA. I'm honestly not sure how I got there. I was trying to find out how to nominate someone and then I got in that mess. I should just let my friend do it. Thanks! Tina A. 18:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Tina A.

Scott Douglas Article

"Even though you may think it's amusing, it's not." Come on, I know your position takes precedence over your appreciation for satire, but you have to admit, that stuff was pretty funny. I think what you may have meant was "Even though you may think it's amusing, it's not [appropriate for Wikipedia's standards]..." With which I agree insofar as Wikipedia had any factual merit to begin with.

Anyway, the Scott Douglas entry is getting a lot of 'vandalism' because of a referral from Mcsweeneys.net. Unless you enjoy reverting articles and handing out pseudo-authoritative warnings all day long, you may want to just lock the article. --justing magpie 19:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate that you took the time to comment, as I find it a valuable thing to understand how I am perceived by others in the Wikipedia community. If there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 09:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Here

I noticed that your page got vandalized, hope I fixed up everything all right yesterday.  :)

Mr Rookles 15:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Plagerism

I trust you have the name of this "website" and are certain that this "bot" functions the way you think it does. I don't even remember this article, but I certainly hope you know where this info came from instead of just making accusations. --DanielCD 13:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, the drama never ends. I guess some ppl try to make up for the lack of excitement in their lives by using these little online intrugues to keep themselves entertained and feeling important. --DanielCD 13:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
As long as I've been here, you could give me the benefit of the doubt and be a bit more diplomatic. I must have made a mistake moving EB1911 material somehow, as I was heavly involved in that project. This edit is more than a year old, so I think "by now" and by all the well-referenced articles I've written, I do quite well know better than dumping text like this. Sorry if I made a mistake. --DanielCD 15:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

States Rights Gist

DS, I posted a new article on States Rights Gist, which has been reworked and better cited. Please review. If you have comments, please don't delete the article again, but let me rework it as appropriate. Thanks, --Daysleeper47 15:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


John Macoun

You wrote:

A plagiarism-detector bot has indicated that, in 2005, you copied the article on John Macoun from an external website. I sincerely hope that you have not done this sort of thing again.

This is most offensive. There was no plagiarism, as your review will reveal. I have restored the article, and I certainly do not appreciate the tone which you have adopted with a wikipedia administrator of long standing. Fawcett5 18:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As you should have been able to ascertain with even a moment's inspection of the wikipedia articles history, the item at www.ulsterhistory.co.uk was lifted verbatim from wikipedia, not the other way around. Note how their article includes items that were added to the wikipedia article by third parties weeks or months after the initial creation by me. Remember, this IS a free licence encyclopedia, people can and do copy US all the time. Be a bit more thorough next time before tossing around serious and unfounded accusations. Fawcett5 19:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


UPDATE: OK, now I’m really pissed off. Not only is the "Dictionary of Ulster" biography for John Macoun lifted verbatim from wikipedia, I see now that they are claiming copyright on our work:

http://www.ulsterbiography.co.uk/copyright.htm

This is reprehensible and unacceptable. I have written to the site maintainer. Fawcett5 19:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Henri Pitot

The article was created almost two years back by me and difficult for me to verify the sources now as I cannot actually 'see' the article. Also I am not aware if this issue was raised on the talk page of the article or posted on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, please correct me if I am mistaken? IrfanAli (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have re-recreated the article, without copyvio content. IrfanAli (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio edits

OMG... First Edvard Munch, now Edouard Vuillard and Cuno Amiet... I'll immediately go through the articles myself. I was the one to make the mess, so I'll clean it up... Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 21:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My creation of Synthetism, [1], is the same as [2]. The copyright notice at the bottom says "© 1986-2006", so it obviously is a copyright violation. I'll remove the remains of that copyvio from the article. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 21:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I read your notice; please quit reverting it

I have read your notice on Miles Marmaduke, but don't recall any copy vio in this old article, something that as a long-time member of the Civil War Task Force, I would object to. However, if you felt this was indeed a vio, I have no issue with you deleting the article. However, PLEASE stop reposting your notice on my talk page. I have read it, and have since deleted it (and will continue to do so). There's no reason to keep posting it! Thanks, and regards. Scott Mingus 02:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 10:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dragonfly

I agree with your proposition about the plagiarism of that article on Allan Leroy Locke being not Fishhead64's fault but some other editor. I hope you've done the right thing and banned that person.

It seems to me to be the tip of a very large iceberg of fraud masquerading as scholarhip on Wikipedia. If someone were copying wholesale from a copyrighted book (and I'm willing to bet good money that a lot have) without attribution, then even with Daniel Brandt's bot you'll never know until a lawsuit lands on Jimbo's desk. That's not "wikilawyering" - its a fact.

If you'll excuse the tone, the reason why I adopted such a confrontational tone was because of William Connelley, who pursues his own extremely narrow POV by reverting any facts that destroy his thesis and then deleting not only attempts to put the (entirely true) facts back in the article, but then deleting all subsequent edits and the discussions about the edits AND DELETING THEM FROM THE EDIT HISTORY and banning the IP address for "trolling/vandalism" for 3 hours.

You see, abusive admins like Connelley bring Wikipedia admins into disrepute. Hence I do not trust Wikipedia admins to not push the "Connelley Red Button" deleting (edit and discussion) history as they go. With climate science, Connelley has now free reign to squash any edit, and libel anyone that he doesn't like AND COVER HIS TRACKS. He's been repeatedly doing so. Does anyone look in those deletion logs or is Connelley able to complete the circle and delete those as well?

It's not as if I'm the only person who has complained about Connelley's abusive behavior pushing his POV. Repeatedly people have complained about his pushing of his extreme environmentalist politics (he's a candidate for the Green Party in the UK) and got nowhere.

- John A --86.142.246.231 12:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


dear dragonfly, DONT DELETE MY PAGE. THIS IS FOR A CLASS. DO NOT DO IT ANYMORE AND MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!

Connelley deleting edits and discussions

If you want to check the deletion logs, look for the (troll) article "The science is settled" from sometime on or about 2nd October 2006

I reverted a deletion from Sheldon to my additions that showed that scientists had in fact said the same thing as "the science is settled". Shelly deleted it on the grounds that they did not use the EXACT PHRASE (which makes it unfalsifiable - try replacing "The Science is settled" with "Sheldon is not an imbecile" for the effect)

Connelley reverted back to Shelly vandalism.

Then I put it back, pointing out in the discussion that Sheldon was well known deleting things on flimsy bases.

Connelley reverted it back again.

I put it back, reverting the loss to the discussions and chiding Connelley for removing the edits.

Connelley was then up against the 3RR rule. What to do?

So he deleted all edits that I'd made by removing them from the histories (both the article and the discussion) and then banned my IP address (I was in the US at the time), viz

"13:41, 2 October 2006 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "216.204.101.210 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (trolling/junk)"

Now you can see the IP address, but unless you knew, how could anyone tell that that IP address has ever made an edit? It's gone down the memory hole.

That's what Connelley means by "Trolling/Junk" - putting in facts that upset his thesis. He then deletes all record of them, as much as he can.

John A --86.142.246.231 13:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Its a bit of a mystery to me what John A thinks he is talking about here. As you can see [3] nothing has been deleted from the history. Unfortunately John A's trolling continues, and his spelling has not improved :-( William M. Connolley 11:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

sitar in jazz

confirming that the sitar in jazz article is entirely new, written by me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphscheider42 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 28 October 2006

Notice re Sir John Skene

You have given me notice that amendments that I made on an article relating to "Sir John Skene" have been removed on the basis of copyright violation. The article itself is not clearly identified, nor the material which has allegedly been copied in violation of copyright. Please identify these so that I can consider whether the allegation is justified--George Burgess 14:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt's anti-plagiarism bot

Where can I read about this bot? It tagged an article on my watchlist, I'd be happy to rebuild it but I'd like to see the plagiarized site to see what can be properly referenced to it.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Tool

Yes, I know about him, so I was suprised something he did is actually useful.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Pitton de Tournefort

Hi. Apologies for the delay but I've been on holiday for a week. It is difficult for me to remember where the original article came from, especially as it has now been deleted. However, I would not have copied it from another website, and have never heard of armenica.org. As User:Haukur surmises, I probably paraphrased the article from the 1911 Britannica. I think it used to be acceptable to do this, although it would now be appropriate to put a reference on the article. Hope that clears it up, and that the article can now be restored to its former glory. Smallweed 21:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Having looked at the article on armenica.org, I can distinctly remember writing that sentence about him being run over in the street that now bears his name. Therefore they copied the article from Wikipedia, not the other way round. Smallweed 15:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Great! Thanks for helping us figure this out. It can be mind-meltingly difficult to be sure in which direction text was copied. Haukur 16:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Not all histories deleted by WMC have been returned

Like wow! Some deleted edits and discussions have been returned. Is it like magic?

Unfortunately not all of the edits have been returned. Why not?

Oh and the delightful Connelley has waded in to the issue of plagiarism here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:86.142.246.231#WP:NPA

It looks as though Connelley's looking for an excuse, ANY excuse, to block an IP address. Or a person. It looks as though the massive chip on his shoulder is causing backache.

John A --86.142.246.231 11:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, as I'm sure you (DS) will be aware (even if JA isn't) the logs record all the deletions; or in this case, record the absence of deletions. So what Ja is on about I really don't know. I'm not even sure if this is anything to do with you, but please feel free to contact me if you like William M. Connolley 11:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Kryder's law AfD

Linky.

I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but I disagree with your assessment of consensus here. While the term does not deserve an article of its own, it would seem that a redirect to Moore's Law was in order here, given how the relevant information was already merged into that article. Also per my own comment (which was the last one in the nomination and you may have missed it) the term is already "out there" and it is conceivable that someone may search for it here. I'd make the redirect if you don't object. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. Take your time. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Be my Halloweenie!

Have a smashing holiday

Bastiq▼e demandez 05:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Spamming with barnstars?

Hello, Dragonfly. I note your comment on User:Sharkface217's talk page. With respect, I disagree with you. The purpose of barnstars is to promote a sense of achievement for individuals in their contributions. Sharkface is doing this. Axl 09:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please delete=

Yes, i'm sorry. Do you know how to delete pages? it was made by my friend as a joke and I need to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candy Baby 1234 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 November 2006

Apology

I would like to apologize for my harsh reaction to your criticism regarding the Philip William Otterbein article. Some of the comments I made were uncalled for. I appreciate your efforts to make Wikipedia a more respectable project. That's the goal I've always worked toward. However, I made a goof, as loathe to admit it as I am. Thanks for your efforts and once again sorry for the harsh reaction. --DanielCD 00:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Also: do you have control of this bot? I would like to use it to audit the rest of my edits if possible. Or has this already been done? --DanielCD 00:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The bot requires a lot of manual oversigh to sort out pages yanking text from Wikipedia. And we don't have it - Daniel Brandt does, and I'm not sure he'll give it to us. We could make our own, though. Haukur 00:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Forwarding a question

Hi. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Percy Nobby Norton. Now Enknowed (talk · contribs) is requesting someone review User:Enknowed/Percy Nobby Norton. It still looks non-notable to me but at least it isn't nearly as absurd as it was and even has a reference which looks legit and mentions the subject by name. Think it's worth another run through WP:AFD? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Secret proceedings for deletion

Secret tribunals, as in the deletion of Mock Duck shouldn't be used. A closed system can easily be abused and exploited to seek revenge against an author or a contributor. When things are done in the shadows, rumour, panic, and urban legends can be used as sources for making decisions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Norton

Okay, but what exactly are these verifiable facts? The article you linked to shows five references: The Edwards ad Tranter don't mention Nobby Norton at all, so they don't count. The other two do seem to verify him as having written one song, "The Raspberry Picker's Song", although one of the links says his last name was "Moreton". Note that the song itself gets just one Google result, so it wasn't a big hit or a classic folk song or anything like that. Finally, the detective magaine link does show that somebody by that name co-wrote two extremely short stories in a pulp magazine. There is no proof that the magaine writer is even the same as the songwriter who wrote one song. So what do we have left? One extremely obscure song, co-credited on two very short stories, possibly not even the same person. I'm sorry, but you've been trolled. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Percy Nobby Norton

I am aware that there actually was such a person, though verifiable sources seem awfully limited. I am also aware that the article history has been, in the past, pretty much absolute garbage, and every indication is that it's a very small number of socks working on it. I have no access to the latest version (it's no longer available) to know if it was legitimate. If it is, and if it's restored, someone would need to keep a close eye on it to keep it legit. Fan-1967 16:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see above for my assesment of the "rewritten" article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Norton

Good lord. Percy "Nobby" Norton is a real article with genuine, verifiable, reliable sources. I am stunned. DS 14:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The history of the page shows that this was deleted and protected by Durin. Remind me again please of why you have left this message for me? (aeropagitica) 19:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit curious about the message on my talk page too. I actually tried to verify this and I couldn't find anything that was remotely close to WP:V by WP:RS. Do you actually have a source for his existance/notability?--Isotope23 01:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Karl Alexander Müller

I just recreated an article on him, but the link is still broken, presumably because it says Karl Alex Müller, instead of Karl Alexander Müller, which is the title of the article.

Ksnow 20:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Ksnow

Should User talk:67.81.102.11 be semi-protected?

The ongoing OCD postings on User talk:67.81.102.11 are kinda creeping me out. Do we just let the person keep scribbling, or should the page be protected? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You could be right. OTOH, I wasn't exaggerating in my first few warning messages to that page -- I must have removed Kate McAuliffe at least a dozen times over several weeks. It does seem like some serious OCD. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

pabshoppers on st giles in the fields

Thanks for your message, I hope this is the best way to reply? (Am new to it all) I work at St. Giles in the Fields, so collated the article from my own knowledge and reading. I', figuring out how to put links in as we speak...!

pabshoppers

Thanks for your message - I shall try and follow protocol on this reply!

Hoppers 01:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)



Nash sources

The relevant citation details are:

For the Journal of American History, "Reviews -- Encyclopedia of Western Lawmen & Outlaws by Jay Robert Nash" in the March 1995 issue, Vol. 81, Iss. 4, p. 1885.
For the Library Journal, a review titled "Reference: Encyclopedia of World Crime" in the August 1990 issue, Vol. 115, Iss. 13, p. 107.

Some of the rest is what I reported, it's not necessarily published elsewhere. --Michael Snow 04:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsuitable username

Thanks for the note - it's one bit of slang I never knew! Warofdreams talk 23:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

An interesting error

Re [4], Malayalee was intended to be the speaker of the language Malayalam in India. It went through this edit and this before being fixed by someone today :) Tintin (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Your block

I'm sure you're aware that you blocked the network of the U.S. House of Representatives for vandalizing Donald Rumsfeld. It looks like a good block, but just as a heads-up if you didn't note it, see the instructions here. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thank you for the extra feathers on my wings!

Thank you so much, DragonflySixtyseven, for your support in my RfA, which passed on November 11, 2006, with a final tally of 82/0/2. I am humbled by the kind support of so many fellow Wikipedians, and I vow to continue to work and improve with the help of these new tools. Should you have any request, do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Húsönd 21:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Lowtax's middle name

Look at the talk page. One of the people pushing it is "EloH," a permabanned poster from Kyanka's forum with a grudge. Secondly, look at the document itself. "Warrant For Unpaid Taxes" - doesn't the fact that someone looked up this information seem rather stalkerish to you? Although it says the warrant has been vacated, it is still clearly an attempt to defame Kyanka in violation of WP:BLP. --Rubber cat 21:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, why does his middle name even need a source? I'm having trouble finding any other biographical article that have a citation for the subject's middle name --Rubber cat 11:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On November 13, 2006, a fact from the article Loretta Perfectus Walsh, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for picking up this interesting fact.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Matthew Murray

I've just spotted some more vandalism on the Matthew Murray page, do you have to be an admin to revert vandalism? or am I just too dim to figure out how to do it for myself? Can you take a look at it for me?

cheers

King of the North East 23:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Devajyoti Ray, Pseudorealism, In Despair

seems the author has decided to recreate these deletes....what is the procedure for this? 4.18GB 23:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
For the AfD close on Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Film, I award you the Barnstar of Good Humor. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Development Hell

I have found good citations for some of the material in the article. While I agree there is no need or possiblilty of listing all movies in development hell, there are some notable cases with reliable and verifiable citations, which should be included. I am in the process of adding citations to the article. Please give me a couple of hours to finish and then lets take a look to see what might be pruned if uncited or insignificant. Please do not do wholesale deleting of citations I have just added. Thanks. Edison 17:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Done now. I think there are enough good sources to justify an article, and that such an article should have some notable examples of films, but not a "crufty" llist of every film which did not immediately go from book or script to a screen near you. I guess as a start, you might delete as original research the ones listed without a citation. Edison 18:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Crawfords

Crawfords

Might I suggest that, on your userpage, you place a statement distinguishing you from the rather controversial Brian G. Crawford? DS 18:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Looks as if this other BC is a bit of a problem. Maybe I should change my username. BrianC 00:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Reason for deletion

Let me know the reason for your deletion of the smackall.com page. codetiger 08:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect

Hi, can you unprotect my talk page? Thanks. --Danny Phantom Phantom... 22:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Brewer

Where is the source for this? If there is no source, I do not believe we should be removing material. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability - Jord 03:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Wefald.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wefald.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Incivility

If you're going to be blatantly incivil to new users, at least remember to sign your messages. That way you'll be the one bearing the consequences, not whoever happened to leave the previous message on the page – Gurch 05:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you know

Updated DYK query On 20 November 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hornsleth Village Project, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha

Yeah, I know all about that nutcase. There isn't anyone on earth who is outside the scope of his conspiracy theories. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes

Yall are right that the term is probably not in wide enough use to warrant a page. I really wanted it to be included in the Landis article. But to no avail, I will drop it now. Morscs5 00:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Errors

Haha, sorry about that. But, I don't remember what my source was, that was over a year ago, haha... --Matjlav(talk) 20:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

E-mail address

DS,

I'm sorry I haven't gotten back to you until now, however the usual e-mail account I use has been having some problems for the last several months. I'm now using an alternative e-mail address which I've now activated in my settings. Also, several of my previous articles have now been restored by User:Xoloz if you'd like to look them over. MadMax 05:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder; I have a tendency to forget those details. Noclevername 05:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Revison update

DS,

I've finish providing references for the latest batch. Please feel free to look them over. MadMax 22:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Finished referencing the ninth set. MadMax 23:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Finished the tenth group, with the exception of Ilyas Sarkiyev who I'm unable to find a reference besides Nash. While there may be articles from the Pravda, I neither have access to them nor able to read Russian. MadMax 23:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Once again, I've completed the latest group of articles. MadMax 20:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
DS, will the redirects to the deleted articles be restored as well or will they need to be recreated ? Also, the article Edward O'Donnell was not created by me, however, Nash was listed as "further reading" as the article had been previously unreferenced. MadMax 07:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Finished the today's batch. MadMax 07:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I've merged the formerly deleted text with the current article. Also, will I have to do that with the recently recreated Frank Scalise as well ? MadMax 15:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I was curious, but will all of Nash's books be removed as references or only the Encyclopedia of World Crime series ? I've replaced those article's I've found with alternative references, I've noticed in the past other articles in which Nash is used such as Bloodletters and Badmen and Look for the Woman among others. MadMax 23:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for help on Fancy rat

i was wondering if your recent edits (Fancy rat and Degloving) implied you had any personal interest in keeping rats as pets. I ask becuase over the past few days I've been making some massive edits to the Fancy rat article and have reached a topic I'm struggling with (see this for how the article used to look), the "Keeping rats as pets" section. Feeling the information was doing more harm than good as a bloated advice column i moved it here so that i could play around with it before inserting it back into the article. However, I'm not really sure where to go with it. I want to keep it as encyclopedic as possible - eliminating "how-to" and advice, but am not sure how to make it work. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Lake Champlain Chocolates page

WP:CORP indicates "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." Please see:

Wall Street Journal -- http://www.careerjournal.com/jobhunting/strategies/20050628-maher.html

New York Times -- http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?frow=0&n=10&srcht=s&query=%22lake+champlain+chocolates%22&srchst=nyt&hdlquery=&bylquery=&daterange=full&mon1=01&day1=01&year1=1981&mon2=11&day2=28&year2=2006&submit.x=19&submit.y=13

Forbes -- http://www.forbes.com/2005/02/14/cz_el_0214bestbites_print.html

Reader's Digest -- http://www.rd.com/content/openContent.do?contentId=27680

There are 500+ more articles written about this company. Is it the article itself that needs to demonstrate notability (you say "The article was deleted because it did not demonstrate notability of the company")?

>>The article was deleted because it did not demonstrate notability of the company. In order for the company to have an article in this encyclopedia, it has to be notable. See WP:CORP for guidelines on what constitutes notability for a company. Without that, it is just spam - Wikipedia is not a advertising service. --Ars Scriptor 20:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Tex Fletcher

Hi Dragonflysixtyseven.

I am having a hard time figuring out out to reply to your post re: Tex Fletcher, though I do appreciate it. I went back up and made a few corrections/additions, and may do even more. Have I been doing things correctly? I would like to post some pics of my dad, but don't know where to start. Please advise and thank you so much. George Fletcher

Wikipedia being used as a chat client

Here are a few more I found: User:Roseart14, User:Colt 45rocks, User:Colt45rocks, User:Cult45rocks and User:Walkerwes. Also, User:204.78.116.10 signed as User:Walkerjam, but that's a shared IP. --Geniac 14:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And two more: User:Pimpalisious and User:Skaterguys --Geniac 14:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Add WFHSMB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) to the list as well. I also believe that 204.78.116.10 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) needs some sort of a blocking. 128.2.251.64 15:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I just found another one that *almost* slipped through the cracks: Tyler Young (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 128.2.251.4 03:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Also Kos-moslover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Menag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). --Geniac 20:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

David Koretz page.

Hi, I noticed you deleted David Koretz. This seems to be a mistake since the deletion log for the page is based off of the proposer's errors in research. He claims that it is nn because the company he started and runs opened its doors in October 2006 (he referenced this article which just mentions that they started offering a new product in October 2006), and that "Blue Tie Inc" gets 34 unique Ghitz. The truth is that the company was founded in 1999, was one of Forbes' "Best of the Web", and is certainly newsworthy. As for his Ghits stat, that's because he mispelled BlueTie (it's all one word) which actually generates 11,700 Ghits with the 'Inc' in there and 329,000 without it.
Thanks for your reevaluation,
-SColombo 17:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Userpage maintenance

Thanks for fixing the note left on my userpage. It's frustrating how easy it is to miss something like that on the watchlist... Tuf-Kat 21:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thagomizer

Do you think we ought to add {{fair use in|Thagomizer}} to this? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Object Oriented Input System deletion

Hi, I was just happened to browse this site for a lib I work on (OIS) and I noticed the page was deleted? I didn't create the wiki page here, but I had noticed it before (an noticed that is was mostly a stub). However, now it is gone, and I am wondering why? I know there are hundreds of other open source project pages here (and many articles that are mearly stubs), so what was the point of deleting that one? I guess it was deleted by you on Nov 27.

Thanks.

--Pjcast 02:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Block

Can you please block user, J Di[5], he/she has violated the 3 revert rule and kept on replacing the AfD on the Dean Geyer page. The debate began on November 27[6] was supposed to be over 31 November (5 Days per AfD [7]), it's way passed that time (it's now 3 December) and he still repeatedly replaces the tag back on. Please block him for the sake of the articles. Thank you!Shaggy9872004 00:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sweettraceey's changes to Montreal

Hi. Like you, I noticed (with alarm!) Sweettraceey' many changes to Montreal. I spent some time comparing version and it looks, to me anyway, that he or she is making many little small edits, one after the other. Doesn't seem to me to be blanking anything. Shawn in Montreal 06:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedianism

I'd like to see it become a word. I want yo make it one. I am coining it - as of today!

Thank you for your correction!
We need the Wikipedia police to keep thinks right!
The nice thing about Wikipedia law is that not merely that there is no Capital punishment. The worst thing that can happen to a Wiki criminal is that he/she/they get to be lock out of Wikicyberspace! But for true Wkipedians that is the ultimate punishment!
But we do need such polite [[Wiki] [cop]]s as yourself!
Have a nice day catching Wiki criminals.
Yours truly, [8] --Ludvikus 18:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Userbox & Userboxs

Dear User:DragonflySixtyseven OK, thanks, got your point.

Now on another matter. There is no Article regarding Userbox, or Userboxes.
I couldn't do it. And I want to write other articles. Could you do it? Even a Redirect would be useful. Beginners know very soon that these lovely things (which by the way you do a nice job of creating) are called NOT rectangles, Userboxes. But a search yealds NOTHING!
Thanks, and have a nice day (or night). Yours truly, --Ludvikus 22:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: What's the Sixtyseven (stand) for?

And thanks for your efficient & effective Policing of Wikipedia!!!
Yours truly, [[9]]--Ludvikus 22:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, observations, recommendations (notice that I haven't linked any of these).

  • Regarding Userbox and/or Userboxes, these are NOT, I think any longer neologisms, but terms of art of Wikipedia. Now notice, by the REDNESS that neither of them has a WP Aricle. Why? A novice, or any stranger, is not goi going to know to search for WP:Userbox, which defined by an Article. So why not merely have a #REDIRECT on it?
    • Also, where you think I have over-linked, can you tell me please? Can you be more specific? I am a former teacher/lecturer/professor in the the classroom/lecture room, and I have never ceased to be amazed at the incredible lack of precision regarding vocabulary meanins!!! So on of the WONDERFUL things about WIKIPEDIA is that it allows one to use Words and Concepts in a very precise way.And anyone who is found to suffer misunderstanding can immediately be directed to the Linked Word!!!
Looking forward to a response, I am, Yours truly, --Ludvikus 16:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

That's fine, thanks anyway for giving it a look. I agree the info would be better for wikibooks (like lots of things), but I'm not up to transwiki-ing. I'd rather fix the article here, i'm just not sure how to write that specific section. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 02:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Nick Griffin

Thanks for your message on my talk page. Unfortunately, I had to leave the computer before I could complete my contribution to the Nick Griffin talk page, which I hope will answer your points. I should have it done within the next 10 minutes. Emeraude 20:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

self-references - exception?

What about artcles ABOUT Wikipedia WITHIN Wikipedia?

  • It seems that here there would be an exception to this rule, no?
    • For example, if I were to start an article called Userboxes, a term of art of WP, WOULD YOU STILL SAY THAT THE RULE AGAINST SELF REFERENCE APPLIES?
      • Anyway, even though its not Halloween, do you feel toward's me like THIS Jack-o below?
Oh! Is that another instance of self-reference?
Yours truly --Ludvikus 17:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Monckton and Eternity Puzzle article

    • Recently you commented on my talk page that I should not keep adding some deleted material back to Eternity puzzle after vandalism. The reason Ertl stopped promoting the Eternity puzzle in the US is related to that event. So respectfully, I disagree, and I'm adding at least a reference back to the article. Possibly unrelated, but the record of the same incident is continuously removed from the article on the viscount himself, most often by homophobic vandals- that is, vandals who target pages with material about gay rights. Needless to say I'm re-adding that material to that page as well; the information is entirely historical and not often reported by the mainstream press. I'll add this response top your talk page so you see it. brain 16:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • you said: On whether Monckton is a homophobe, I am not qualified to judge. However, my inforation is that Ertl did not stop selling the Eternity Puzzle in the US, and any actions they may or may not have taken regarding promotional campaigns cannot be conclusively tied to Tatchell's actions. Consequently, these statements cannot be included in the article; please read our policies on biographies of living persons.
    • no, they stopped promoting it. Please see [10] - there was a big launch planned, with Monkton, and they cancelled it. This is historical, don't you think it should go somewhere? It directly influenced the Eternity Puzzle, it doesn't matter if the event itself seems unsavory. Is that the problem? The policy is "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material" - however this event was very well sourced. brain 16:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • also- in the 4 December 1992 issue of Private Eye magazine, Monckton said "what homosexuals do to each other ... is wildly unnatural and repulsive in the extreme." In an interview with the press. That seems pretty homophobic to me!
  • you said: Thank you for your information; however, kindly refrain from re-adding this information without my explicit administrative approval: there's a problem that needs resolving first. I concede you meant well, but for right now, this information should not be in the article.
    • for right now? I'm sorry, can you spell this out for me- am I waiting for something? I noticed the history for the article is now entirely gone. Is there some kind of maintenance going on? Are you now a custodian of this page? I don't really understand; please let me know. brain 17:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
you said: Bear in mind that this material is controversial, and that Private Eye and OutRage are not necessarily the most reliable and/or neutral sources. This becomes even more important when you consider that Viscount Monckton has complained via OTRS. The URL you provided is most helpful, and I have asked the Viscount for his response. Until such time as that response is provided, I repeat my request that you refrain from re-adding the material in question. Thank you. DS 17:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • got it now. Thanks, DS. brain 17:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

hello

Edward Buckner. I let these other people use my page as a place to put together an article. If you check the history you will see I have not contributed any material whatsoever to the article. On the talk page, I urged against any kind of purple prose or ad hominem.

I did not realise this would go quite so far. I wonder if it is possible to move it to an article called Apocalypse cancelled or similar? I absolutely don't want to get involved in any sort of public debate. Dbuckner 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

On moving the article to a subdirectory, fine. I wonder if that complaint was genuine. Dbuckner 20:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to add that i'm also wondering if the complaint was genuine, especially since the complaint was referring to ad-hominem, which (imho) is incorrect. The article as it currently stands is not NPOV, that is correct, since the premise was to formulate a reply to Lord Moncktons article. The article has no merit as a page in the general wikispace, which is why i propose that we move the original pages into another user-space. --Kim D. Petersen 22:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Could we have the page Global Warming/Apocalypse Cancelled removed? I've moved the original page from DBuckner's area to mine - so that he won't be involved in whatever happens - thanks --Kim D. Petersen 09:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Update

I've revised the articles referencing Nash which I've been able to find either on Google or Wikipedia although I'm sure there a few still lying around. MadMax 00:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark Clifford

Hi Dragonfly,

I've rewritten parts of Mark Clifford to address POV issues resulting from contributions by User:Markclifford. I noticed from your edit summary's that you had been in touch with the real Mark Clifford and had gotten some information from him for the article. Would it be possible for you to post this email to the articles talk page? (with email addressed redacted of course) It would help ensure that the content of the article is verifiable and provide a source that future editors could check in case something is changed.

Thanks, GabrielF 01:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, cool. I just wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page. I'm glad that the paper contacted wikipedia rather than trying to edit the article themselves. GabrielF 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

New Article Help

Thanks so much for the help with my new article. I was worried that someone would see the extra article with the quotations and think I was a moron! Thanks for the welcome and the help. Burquelo 04:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Burquelo

Weird West

I notice you made an early edit to Weird West discussing how it is a term used in fiction. Someone has requested sources for the entry and, while I'm digging around for some, I thought I'd drop you a line to see if you also had anything. (Emperor 17:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC))

i am sorry, no offense

is the 67 supposed to be inferior to 69.im not immature, but it just struck me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crabworld (talk • contribs) 01:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC). oh, I understandCrabworld 01:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ewart Brown

when deleting material from articles, please provide a justification such as POV. Otherwise, it could be construed as vandalism. In the case of your changes, WP:BLP has this to say: "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." 155.68.108.171 03:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

DS,

Regarding the revision of future articles, would it be possible to give other articles higher priority then others as they are resored ? I only asked as there has been some concern for example regarding the proposed deletion of Category:German-American mobsters which had been previously deleted regarding the issue of too few entries. Also, in regards to citations, should I be including the page number for some sources or is simply the book sufficent ? MadMax 07:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Also would picture from any of Nash's books be acceptable to use if they were in the public domain or appeared in other organized crime related books ? MadMax 08:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi - a question about uploading an image onto my article on Clare Heald. I have a photo of her - which I own, and it was taken over 70 years ago. But I would only want it used with my prior permission. What license do I attach to it when it is viewed...? Any guidance welcome! Plowdenc 13:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Smellslikebrett

I tried talking to him about the subject rationally, but it looks like he was so married to his proposal that he wouldn't listen to reason. At least I thought I was being up front and kind about it... (shrug) Oh, well. --Mhking 20:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Update

  • I've finished the latest set. MadMax 21:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I've completed this recent set. I wasn't aware there so many deleted articles, although I'm assuming a large chunk of these may be articles I either contributed to (ex. Bowery Boys) or other articles such as those based of "Look for the Woman" and other related resources. I'd be more then happy to provide alternate references if these articles if you or any of the other administrators are willing to have them restored. MadMax 22:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't realized I'd created that many, and I assumed the count was a little high. Also, I was intrerested in the images as the Encyclopedia of World Crime contains a huge amount of picures, specifically mugshots, FBI and news photos, which I would assume would ordinarily be used under Wikipedia's fair use policies. I've finished the latest group of articles by the way. MadMax 20:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Pinochet

Partially correct. He is in stable condition! - crz crztalk 19:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Right To Vanish

Hello, I'm invoking the right to vanish from Wikipedia and asking that my userpage and talk page be deleted, and my account be blocked indefinatley to prevent impersonation or future use by someone else. Thanks much. Knowing Is Half The Battle 21:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


You Have A Problem

Hey, I was innocently trying to look at a new Gerard Butler movie, when it popped up that YOU!! had blocked me from the site for vandilism. Well, I can assure you I had nothing to do with it. This is a computer that is used by more than just me, and so I signed in to tell you you are harsh and the way you treat people is uncalled for!

Re: Barry Switzer

I reverted changes to the Barry Switzer article because they completely destroyed the article. It looked like somebody has copy-pasted the html-generated page into the article. Thereby removing all wikilinks, images, categories; basically it was a horrible edit. You can see the edit here: Barry Switzer. After somebody made the edit that ruined the page, somebody else began to edit the article trying to improve it. So, I restored the article to the version right before it was massively edited.--NMajdan•talk 14:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanugulen Ravindran

I notice you deleted Thanugulen Ravindran. Since it's already been recreated three times, I'd ask that you salt it so it cannot be recreated again. --Eyrian 03:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Gary Fong

Your deletion of the Gary Fong article is incorrect. The photographer is well known in photography circles. Though the page was created by a "Garyfong", I severely edited it so that it was not promotional. That means I deleted 95 percent of the page. Note: I am a third party editor with no conflict of interest. Please restore the page and the image you deleted. It will be much simpler for me or others to add whatever you insist on than for us to recreate the page and image all over again. Please do so very soon. Hu 23:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Hu 23:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I am curious about the reasoning behind the trims you made and what your exact reason for the speedy deletion in the first place was. I ask because it would be helpful for improving the article. The Talk page did not get resurrected, but that is of little or no importance, nothing of consequence was there that is not replicated elsewhere. Hu 23:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so Gary's notability is that he's the guy who invented the Lightsphere, right? And this is because he's a photographer. Right?

So what does it matter that he has a degree in pharmacology? DS 23:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC) from Hu's Talk page

Thank you for the reply. I can see how you'd reason that way, but two points. First, he was notable as high-end ($100,000 fees) wedding photographer as well as the Lightsphere, which is a fact that will have to be entered. Second, his degree is a fact, which may or directly matter in the long run. At the very least it indicates he received a tough degree at a reputable university. He may not have directly used that education in his career, but it can't but help have affected him. Other biographies on Wikipedia note degrees people have attained in fields they haven't used much. An example I chanced up on yesterday: US Senator Lincoln Chafee#Early life, education, and early_career. Anyway, thanks for the help. I'll see about improving the article. Hu 23:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A small thing (an annoying troll)

Could You please block this as per this&this? I hope I didn't disturb You. Cheers, --PaxEquilibrium 21:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dirt rocker

dirt rocker has been recreated! - CobaltBlueTony 20:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

About Talk:Baiji and Baijitun.com

Hi. I've cleared up things about the link. It's now a website registered to a porn operator, who flashes a porn site intermittently. That's where all the misunderstandings arose. I'm really sorry for almost accusing you of being in the act. I'll post a full explanation on my talk page to warn against this type of misunderstanding. Cheers. Xiner (talk, email) 00:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Very cool. I'll let you know when I finish up my masterpiece/essay/account about what happened. It should be entertaining. Xiner (talk, email) 01:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, it's not as entertaining as I thought. I definitely missed a few red lights there. Mea culpa. But anyway, here are the uncensored facts of what happened. Xiner (talk, email) 02:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Just forwarding this

A user was asking about the explanation in the blocking summary [11]. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Preamble to the United States

Not an atricle? Does an article become an article after one person starts it with credable information? What did you expect, perfection? It is people like you who are to quick to delete articles that makes wikipedia less than it could be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.38.237 (talk • contribs) 11:08, December 20, 2006

Are you saying I need to repeat what is already in other preamble articles. Is what I listed not considered a sub-category or a stub? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.38.237 (talk • contribs) 15:29, December 20, 2006

Do you not belive in God or something, or you trying to stop that article becasue of your personal prejudice? Are you going to answer my previous question?70.239.38.237

Important things

Since you're busy on the {{usernameblock}} list today... I thought you'd be interested in this. Bastiq▼e demandez 15:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On December 21, 2006, a fact from the article Buzz Holmstrom, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

- Thanks for picking this up Dragonfly. Happy editing, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


Image deletion Image:Welcome2.gif

I am the author of this image i created it. i can do whatever i want with it!!! What is the problem? You should discuss it with me before deleting. EvilAlex 19:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC) I have been bullied by Administrators! Three in one day. Anarchy rules in Wiki, there is no rules anymore?! EvilAlex 19:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Curb jumping

I see you have deleted the page about Curb Jumping and you say wikipedia is not a place for made up things. All of the extreme sports on the list were made up at some point and curb jumping is a real sport that is practiced in Lexington, KY. I would appreciate it if you restored my page. Tgreen8091 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgreen8091 (talk • contribs) 12:37, December 22, 2006

Lord & Taylor

72.82.167.90 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) is damaging the Lord & Taylor article as 141.150.233.178 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) and 72.82.212.127 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) had been in the past. I suspect all three of these IP addresses belong to the same person. Can you block? Clipper471 01:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Restoration

DS,

I was curious, however, would it be possible to give preference to those articles with highest number of red links such as the White Hand Gang, Unione Siciliane or the Labor slugger war when restoring in future articles ? I only ask as there seem to be a number of my former articles being recreated which seem to have questionable claims and other information I may or may not be able to provide references for. MadMax 23:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
DS,
I certainly appreciate you getting back to me so quickly and, as I'm sure you must be busy especially during Christmas, I certianly hope I haven't bothered you. I have finished the latest articles and have compiled a list of the remaining articles with red links with the execptions of Frank Scalice, Louis Manna and Vincent Solano, the latter having been accidenentally recreated by myself (having not been listed on by User page). Thanks again for all your help.
  • Egan's Rats (17)
  • Frank McErlane (15)
  • Ferdinand Boccia (13)
  • Raymond L.S. Patriarca (13, as well as an additional 7 under Raymond Patriarca, Sr.)
  • Frank J. Wilson (10)
  • Jim O'Leary (10, as well as an addional 2 under James O'Leary)
  • Rocco Valenti (9)
  • Frank Wortman (8)
  • Shelton Gang (8)
  • Messina Brothers (8)
  • Yellow Henry Gang (8, as well as an additional 2 under Yellow Henry)
  • White Hand Society (7)
  • Milton Rockman (6)
  • Kaoru Ogawa (6)
  • Ruggiero Boiardo (6)
  • Max Hoff (6, as well as an additional 2 under Maxie Hoff and 4 under Boo Boo Hoff)
  • Hell's Kitchen Gang (6, as well as an additional link from the deleted
  • Southside O'Donnell Brothers (5, as well as an additional 5 under the grammatically incorrect Southside O'Donnell's)
  • Lou Rothkopf (5, as well as an additional 1 under Lou Rhody)
  • Morelli Gang (4)
  • Frank Panno (4)
  • John Mirabella (4)
  • James V. LaSala (4)
  • Angelo LaPietra (4)
  • Frederick J. Tenuto (4, as well as one under Frederick Tenuto)
  • James Tenns (3)
  • James Mirro (3)
  • Joseph LoPiccolo (3)
  • Tri-State Gang (3)
  • Cuckoos Gang (3)
  • Hartley Mob (3)
  • Westside O'Donnell Brothers (2, as well as an additional 4 under the grammatically incorrect Westside O'Donnell's and 1 under Westside O'Donnells)
  • Smaldone Brothers (2, as well as 2 under Eugene Smaldone and 2 under Clarence Smaldone)
  • James T. Licavoli (2, as well as an additional 17 under James Licavoli)
Just finished the first five. MadMax 08:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The next five are finished. MadMax 22:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Richard Kyanka

Your loyalty to Lowtax, while admirable, is entirely misplaced. A government website can't be called "defamatory" because it doesn't meet any of the burdens of that definition. The fact that Kyanka's tax problems have come to light as a result of their posting doesn't in itself make the reference derogatory or libelous in any way and should be kept as a result. Since there was a call for a reference on his middle name, and because that reference meets all of Wikipedia's requirements as such, means that it should be kept where it is. Lastly, your status as a member of his forums should preclude you from making any judgement on this as your bias demonstrates a lack of objectivity. 24.17.214.110 22:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


Lord & Taylor Vandalism on Mall pages

Our favorite little vandal is at it again with yet another new IP...this time he's vandalizing mall pages saying they contain a Lord & Taylor when in fact they do not. Check out the Lord & Taylor talk page for more info.

Mike PanzaM22 04:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi DS! Our autistic boy seems to have a new IP address, perhaps at a friend's house? It's 72.82.180.179 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log). Now that he can't edit the Lord & Taylor page, he's adding the store into the lists at mall websites... and still falsifying citations too. I'll send this same note to Sandstein so you're both on the same page. Thanks and have a great day! --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 04:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion (over a year late)

I noticed that you speedy'd David Tilman last year (Special:Undelete/David_Tilman) as a "nn-bio". It's ancient history, and presumably you are more careful these days...but you did delete one of the most eminent living American ecologists. Guettarda 18:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Race Riot of 1919 on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chicago Race Riot of 1919. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kchase T 23:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

DS, I just wanted to tell you that I thought speedying the article was a perfectly understandable thing to do. IAR in the face of massive false information problems, I suppose. If I'd known why you did it, I would have just come back to you and asked for a restoration so I could have cleaned it up or gotten back to a clean version. Anyway, hopefully we'll be restoring some version of the article now, so it all ends well for the readers.--Kchase T 03:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment moved from user page

How are they supposed to find out about Curb Jumping if there is not an article? Tgreen8091 (moved by CobaltBlueTony 18:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC))

Re: Bugger

Blargh, I never pick the good messages to miss -- it looks like it's dealt with, by now, but I'll give things a closer look. Maaay have been template vandalism. Luna Santin 21:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

Hello, you may remember me, I was that raving zealot you interacted with 2 Octobers ago (I am a changed Wikipedian, for the better). I want to congratulate you on your engagement and I hope you have a nice new year. Aaрон Кинни (t) 07:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Username change

I have requested a new username now, and appreciate your comments. There is no need to move my Josef Zirmer article to my userpage, as I have made a copy elsewhere. I don't know if it is necessary to delete the images from my Josef Zirmer article, but if you would be able to do that if you get the chance, I would also appreciate it. Many thanks, congratulations and best of luck in 2007. Letsfckpeaches 02:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

People failing, etc

While some people may not fully grasp that Wikipedia isn't a web host for their school projects, don'tcha think that "No. The article has been deleted. You fail." is at least a tad harsh? ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you said on IRC you apologized for being harsh. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Cutting Crap

  • Got it, will commenece cutting the crap immedetially.

--Nwbpwnr 03:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User Talk:PatStewart/Archive 5

Just because I add references to Kate McAuliffe on dozens of articles, why did you say that I a stupid 12 year old boy on PatStewart/Archive 5's user talk? By the way, I am currently a 15 years old boy. And I am not stupid. PS: My IP address keeps changing every once in a while for some reason

In recognition

The Purple Star
Given in recognition for having one of the most vandalised user pages. Timrollpickering 03:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


User talk:Marvin 7779

I left a comment on the above talk page saying you should warn before blocking. I'm just making sure you see it really. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Anselm Hollo

I'm afraid I thought at first that your note on User talk:Poetlister re the above article was a "crank" one. I now see you're an admin and, from the article edit history, that you're revising under OTRS. It seems clear that Poetlister doesn't know what this is or its relevance, and it is also likely to be overlooked by any new editors to the article. I think it would be useful to post an explanation on the article talk page, also indicating what degree of flexibility there is in this particular instance. You might like to check other possible solutions.[12][13]

Google results are minimal for the full name, more with first name and many more with just initials. However Poetlister has supplied a ref,[14] and the Finnish wiki gives the full name at the beginning of the article.[15]

Tyrenius 01:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:CiteBot

Hi, I noticed you've spotted the account for CiteBot, please be assured it will not be making any edits until I've actually written the necessary code (could take a while) and it's all been through the Bot Approval Group process. I'll put the necessary "it's my sock" noticed up in a moment. --Kind Regards - Heligoland (Talk) (Contribs) 00:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Re Enitharmon

3. A time passed over, the Eternals
Began to erect a tent;
When Enitharmon, sick,
Felt a Worm within her womb.

4. Yet helpless it lay like a Worm
In the trembling womb
To be moulded into existence

5. All day the worm lay on her bosom
All night within her womb
The worm lay till it grew to a serpent
With dolorous hissings & poisons
Round Enitharmons loins folding,

6. Coild within Enithamrons womb
The serpent grew casting its scales,
With sharp pangs the hissings began
To change to a grating cry,
Many sorrows and dismal throes
Many forms of fish, bird & beast,
Brought forth an Infant form
Where was a worm before.

7. The Eternals their tent finished
Alarm'd with these gloomy visions
When Enitharmon groaning
Produc'd a man Child to the Light.

8. A shriek ran thro' Eternity;
And a parlytic stroke;
At the birth of the Human shadow.

9, Delving earth in his resistless way;
Howling, the Child with fierce glames
Issu'd from Enitharmon.

Rintrah 04:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Jocularity

Thanks for making Wikipedia just a little bit more entertaining.  :-) Best, Dar-Ape 18:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Carissa and Josephine O'Meara on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Carissa and Josephine O'Meara. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Note

I have moved your article on your Helena project to a subset of your userpage. It will stay there until you can convince other editors that it merits an article. Got it? DS 16:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you need to be conviced. If a list of papers published in several international conferences and a PhD Thesis are not enough, i don't really know what i can do. Can you tell me? Maybe i should notify the reading comitees of all these international conferences that all our papers they found interesting are considered as trivial and/or irrelevant by wikipedia admins. I think they would commit hara-kiri right away. Christophe.Pajault 07:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk page for The Simpsons Movie (Music from the Motion Picture)

I tagged the the talk page for speedy delete, and seeing as it was AfD'd today and deleted by you, I wanted to let you know it's still there. Leebo86 01:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD

The template states: "Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled." Dddstone 12:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You did not actually begin an AfD debate. Furthermore, I am an administrator, and I judged that it would have been a Speedy Keep: antipopes are inherently notable, and why would you believe otherwise? DS 14:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Excuse my inability to master the methods for AfD. Whatever happened to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers? I just thought that an article which is nothing more that a sentence restatement of the title is not an article. Since Antipopes are obviously your pet project, it is probably futile for me to continue with this issue. Since you are the last and final word on all things Wikipedia, I will stay away from trying to improve or add anything to any topic that you are interested in. I thought that there was a policy addressing that... Dddstone 14:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
You've been around since 2005, so I'd hardly call you a newcomer. Sure, I have been editing, but I do not have much experience with the inner workings of WP, especially AfD.
Tag them for expansion, not deletion Is that how it works? The non-information in the articles can be found in the article title and the Antipope article, just because they may be notable doesn't mean that Wikipedia needs an article just to hold their name and a navigation template. Why not just have a redlink in the Antipope article until someone can write something article-worthy.
these were men who ruled over a significant portion of the Catholic Church for several years each. That makes them notable. Uh, the three that I tagged were in office for less than one year and the articles were less than stubworthy. I am not arguing the notability of antipopes, just that those three articles are not appropriate as they stand. Just because a topic is notable shouldn't mean that a crappy article should stay.
Dddstone 14:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

About blocking me

No problem, I understand the misunderstanding, and all is forgiven. I will in fact keep my present name, for I do enjoy it. But I thank you for the apology, and I accept it.Jarlaxle, ruler of the universe 23:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

IRC message

What would indicate that I'm not okay? ★MESSEDROCKER★ 11:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Joe Rossi

Dragonflysixtyseven,

I noticed that you once revised the article, 'Joe Rossi'. I am that Joe Rossi and in 2005, in a moment of arrogence, posted the article thinking I may someday run for office again. Unfortunately, a former co-worker has been slandering me by editing it every day. I've attempted to contact the wiki help desk, asking that the entire article be deleted to save me from checking the article and deleting their slander. Can you help me with this, as I am not at all familiar with editing wiki articles? It seems you have the nack for it. I'd greatly appreciate any help that you could provide to remedy this issue. My email address is josephprossi@yahoo.com if you need to contact me. Thank you.

Joe Rossi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.107.152.37 (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

mind be pure chance

It might be pure chance but maybe this page might look familar to you --Larry laptop 15:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Celeste

You asked why I recreated the page from a cached Google version.

Simple. I recreated the page because it had been deleted. Why was it deleted? I could understand clearing out opinionated information, but the article itself shouldn't have been deleted. Of course this is my personal opinion, but since Wikipedia purports itself to be an encyclopedia, when I look up information on someone like Jill Kelly or Jenna Jameson and find them, but do not find an article on another popular adult star from the 90s, I thought it should be recreated. I used the one source I found. I didn't see any discussion on the page about policy violations, and was unaware of the reason for its removal. Pejorative.majeure 23:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink meat

Hello. I think it was not wise to close this AfD so soon. It met no WP:CSD and had previously only been speedily deleted. I'd have preferred to let discussion run for five days, which would have allowed us to delete future incarnations of this content per WP:CSD#G4. Sandstein 15:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Kate McAuliffe

I saw what you wrote on User_talk:Patstuart/Archive_5. You said that I was a stupid 12 years old boy just because I am obsessed with Kate McAuliffe. I am not a stupid 12 year old. Erler 18:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Kate McAuliffe

I am 67.81.102.11, the one who is obsessed with Kate McAuliffe. 141.150.54.2 19:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

-Groan-. I thought that 2 months as too harsh!: User:Continental Airlines Flight 703 . -Patstuarttalk|edits 23:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Pope Suspicious Gentleman

Please block him at once. He is a horrible person with only bad faith. Newcastle Brown Ale 14:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete my article? That was a really horrid thing to do.--Pope Suspicious Gentleman 14:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You are really really mean. I don't like you--Pope Suspicious Gentleman 15:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


This is cool

it updates every hour for the admins :) --Parker007 15:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


Category Tracker Summary
Requests
Copyright violations for speedy deletion 3
Attack pages for speedy deletion 0
Requests for unblock 2
Candidates for speedy deletion 34
Backlogs
Images with unknown source for deletion in dispute 879
Articles lacking in-text citations 1060
Articles with sections needing expansion 6637
NPOV disputes 5580
All pages needing cleanup 26386
All articles needing copy edit 2193
Wikipedia articles needing style editing 9222
Stubs 2327
Articles that may contain original research 3581
Wikipedia articles in need of updating 1271
Wikipedia articles needing context 4655
All articles lacking sources 83256
All pages needing to be wikified 12651
All articles to be expanded 18659
All articles with unsourced statements 75197
Redirects for deletion 27
Rescaled fairuse images 415
Accuracy disputes 2080
Images for cleanup 134
All images with unknown copyright status 1983
All replaceable fair use images 454
Uncategorized pages 10329
All images with no fair use rationale 1866
All articles proposed for deletion 1006
Pages needing expert attention 1393
All orphaned fairuse images 2478

Abusive

HOW AM I ABUSIVE? HOW AM I? THAT WAS A RIDICULOUS BAN I GOT. UNBELIEVABLE. HOW DID YOU FALL FOR THAT?

Oh, and quit having people delete the now twice defunct Catherine Woods article. What a joke, the article is about a murdered stripper in New York. It was a top story on MSNBC. It is very notable if it reaches those levels. Thanks Catherine Woods 17:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Benjiwolf and Polarbears

You asked Benjiwolf why he deleted something you wrote on polar bears. I think Benjiwolf might be suffering from delusions of grandure. He has been on the Wiki since all of 3 January 2007 and already he has been threating me with banning and laying down the NPOV law. I seriously think this guy is a menace. Check this out where Benjiwolf pretends like he is an Administrator and is giving me a "final" warning before banning me because he does not like my edits. One to keep an eye on I would say. Ttguy 06:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey there! If i removed the garbage thing i sincerely apologize...i pulled up an older page to get back at two links to news articles on polar bears and pollution that someone had erased subtley under minor edits that i hadnt noticed before...i just wanted the old page back up front so i could compare it to new versions...ill just write the links back in i suppose...didnt mean to nix ur input...it was just a temporaray thing...i figured someone would restore a new version right away...and as to this "Ttguy"...he is the type that would have removed it intentionally and permanently just so u know...he just writes on GM food and GE tech as a lobbiest for big-agro and constantly removes the links and sentences people put in that arnt so pro-GM food...i asked him about it on his user page and now hes all in a flurry as i gave him a warning...im even pro GE tech myself when its responsible...(which it isnt quite yet)...yet he was clearly altering the NPOV of some pages by removing information...i gave him a warning assuming bad faith...as it clearly seemed he was intentionally altering the pages in a lobbying effort and the subject of pro agro-tech is the only he writes on...i even told him i wasnt intending to block him and thought he had some good edits here and there too...yet hes out to get me now i suppose...whatever...if you look back at the polar bear pages ull see i have added a large amount of scientific data to the page and would clearly want ur input & articles in there if it was factual...i ddint even look to see what was nixed when i restored that old version...as i say i just wanted it up front to compare...cheers!...Benjiwolf 10:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:Matvej_A._Kozhev

Could you please cite your source for the policy you so duly cited in that MfD? Personally, I think that you should have at least made a comment before deleting the page. The user was new and obviously didn't know what he was doing, or he planned to fix up the page in his honor. But regardless, you shouldn't just go deleting someones userpage without even alerting them. I know that a user page isn't solely the person's, but he has a right in deciding if stuff stays or goes. → JARED (t)  14:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did you take down the info on bridgton, including all the members of the appeals board?

Monday

Thanks, that was a long time ago! Unlikely to re-run, but I have created whitelists for this very purpose at: Wikipedia:Date formattings. Rich Farmbrough, 14:48 29 January 2007 (GMT).

Thanks

Hi, thanks for the nomination of Ram Brahmo Sanyal in the DYK section. Cheers. ray 21:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for pointing that out ! English transcriptions of Indian words, sigh. I have finished on the article now. ray 21:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Deanna Primes

Good Day,

I have a degree in Mathematics from the University of Waterloo. Could you please stop deleting my post on the prime numbers. It is a valid identification of Prime Numbers.

Regards, Oliver

Courtesy Notice

I've replied to your comments on my talk page regarding pimps. Mathmo Talk 04:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Achewood Toddler Status

Wait, where did you put the Achewood Toddler Status? I can't find it anywhere, nor can I guess the URL. Prell 16:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I wanted to thank you for reconsidering your original ban. Keep up the good work, and I'll see you on Wednesday morning. Mysticfeline has become a commodity 22:02, 30 January 2007

Protection of Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

Why did you semi-protect this talk page? I don't see any particular evidence of vandalism that would warrant it? I was going to unprotect it, but thought I'd ask first. —Doug Bell talk 23:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. We don't generally protect a page, particularly a talk page, based on one or two incidents of vandalism. Do you have any objection to me unprotecting it? —Doug Bell talk 00:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Autisitic editor

Hi DS. The 15 year old autistic boy with the fixation on Lord & Taylor is active again. He actually never did completely stop in the past month, but his edits weren't too hard to keep up with and none of his IPs reached level 4 warnings. However he's gotten really active in the last couple of days using 71.168.146.181 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) and 141.150.233.178 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log). I was hoping that you could write to this boy's mother again and ask that she keep him under control. If she says, like the last time, that her son's usually right about these things, you need only point her at the citations in the articles to prove him wrong. Thanks for your continued help in this matter, it's not easy knowing we're causing stress in that family. Thanks!--Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 21:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow

You sound a little disappointed that I'm not dead! I'm just busy, that's all, without much time for either Wikipedia or IRC. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 01:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Genarlow Wilson

Responded on my page. MadMaxDog 04:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. While not wanting to be a pest, I'd appreciate an answer to my questions as regarding this case. Thanks. MadMaxDog 02:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

User is blocked

DragonflySixtyseven is my favorite blocking admin because I like the way he blocks me from editing.

Dr Chatterjee

On User talk:Dr Chatterjee, you added the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFCU#Dr_Chatterjee Unfortunately, the place this link refers to has been archived. I suggest changing the link to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr Chatterjee. --Kevinkor2 22:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'd change the link myself, but the page is protected by User:NawlinWiki because it was vandalized by Bobby Boulders.

Re: * Luna-San asks for the severed head of Wikipe-tan

Oh, man, that is one unhappy-looking Wikipe-tan. :o Luna Santin 00:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 5 February 2007, a fact from the article Ram Brahma Sanyal, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Yomanganitalk 11:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of deleted articles under review

Re Evil Inc., when you make the edit history of previously deleted articles available please put up a {{subst:DRV}} tag as screen against public viewing and, if necessary, protect the article from editing. Thanks, trialsanderrors 18:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Postville, Iowa and Agriprocessors

I see you deleted material in The Postville article, which was fine by me, as I had intended to get there myself. As for the Agriprocessors article, someone with the user name Ccarbonera (and whose sole edit is this one) removed everything controversial regarding Agriprocessors (all of this was fully sourced and reffed), and not just the material he particularly objected to. I would not be suprised if Ccarbonera is somehow connected to Agriprocessors. On seeing the changes in the Postville article, I was worried the same thing had happened here. I put Agriprocessors back as it was before. --MarkTwainOnIce 23:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I once again note that Ccarbonera] has vandalized the article. These to contribs are his only contribs. Request restoration and protection.--67.1.120.59 10:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Two points

  1. I was not banned from Ashlee articles (or any articles) when I deleted that hoax. I was banned from them for only four months in the spring and summer of 2005. I would appreciate it if you would remove that element from your question so as not to mislead anyone. (I intend to respond to the rest of your question on the RfA page, but give me time.)
  2. You call me an "extreme inclusionist"; I personally am not sure what you mean by "extreme", and it might be more useful for me to just tell you what I think. I definitely do not want any articles on individual dogs unless they are famous dogs. I uphold the principles of both verifiability and notability and do not favor having any content that is not verifiable and notable. I also don't see what me being an admin would have to do with it; as it is, I express my views about article inclusion on AfD debates as an ordinary editor, and I would continue to do that as an admin, nothing more or less. My votes would not count any more as an admin. I explained in my answer to question one that I have never closed AfD debates and would not do so in the future. So what effect would my inclusionism have? It makes sense to be concerned about a deletionist if there's a concern they'll be deleting things unjustifiably and out of process and/or against consensus, but I see no reason to worry about an inclusionist who wouldn't be closing any debates anyway. Everyking 05:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Billyard

Hi-

I'm writing you on behalf of the members of the Quadrangle Club (and I am a member as well). I recently created an article dedicated to the Quad tradition of Billyard, which you immediately deleted. I've since read up on the Wikipedia standards for what constitutes a legitimate article, and I agree that I should not have created an article just for Billyard. My solution, then, was to make the Billyard discussion a part of the larger article on the Quadrangle club, which I believe is perfectly appropriate. Billyard, as the vast majority of the members of the Quadrangle Club agree, has quickly become a unique and identifying feature of the Quadrangle Club, and as such deserves representation on the Quad wikipedia entry. I plan to reapply the Billyard section to the Quad article, and on behalf of the entire Quadrangle Club, I ask you not to delete it.

Thanks.

Other stuff

The point of Wikipedia is to give people information. Why would you care if it is a copyright violation? Putting the information on Wikipedia does not harm the writer. I plan to change the article slightly and post it back up soon. Randomfrenchie 21:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your interest in all Wikipedia articles remaining neutral. Thusfar, though, no one outside of Quad knows enough about the game to write about it comprehensively. How, then, are we to include an emerging tradition such as Billyard in the article? Just because it is new does not mean it is any less important to the Club. How is one to decide when an activity is "old enough" to be considered legitimate? And if such a determination must be made, wouldn't the members of the club be in the best position to make it?

In the end, the fact remains that Billyard is a tradition important enough to the members of Quad to merit mention in its Wikipedia article. If Quad members are not allowed to write about it, then it will not be included at all, and Wikipedia will have failed in its mission.

Thanks-

WPoor


To answer your question, look at the comment I made below the day before I expressed my opinion on your user page. Randomfrenchie 02:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi-

I'm writing you on behalf of the members of the Quadrangle Club (and I am a member as well). I recently created an article dedicated to the Quad tradition of Billyard, which you immediately deleted. I've since read up on the Wikipedia standards for what constitutes a legitimate article, and I agree that I should not have created an article just for Billyard. My solution, then, was to make the Billyard discussion a part of the larger article on the Quadrangle club, which I believe is perfectly appropriate. Billyard, as the vast majority of the members of the Quadrangle Club agree, has quickly become a unique and identifying feature of the Quadrangle Club, and as such deserves representation on the Quad wikipedia entry. I plan to reapply the Billyard section to the Quad article, and on behalf of the entire Quadrangle Club, I ask you not to delete it.

Thanks.


Fair enough. Thanks for your reply, and best regards. Kevdotcom--Kevdotcom 19:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi. I don't want to judge you, but you recently deleted an article I created, Wonder Spot. It was a decently long article with lots of 100% factual information. I even cited my major source in the talk page and another user put a link to it at the bottom of the page. The goal of Wikipedia is to inform people. There is nothing gained from deleting long, useful, and true articles. Why would you do that? How does that article affect anybody negatively? The goal of Wikipedia is for people to be able to get information. Maybe you are right an it shouldn't be an articl, but, either way, I would like to get a copy of the deleted article for my information. How may I do this? Can you please help me find a way to get the text of the article back? I won't post it back up if it's not the right thing to do. I worked hard on that article. Randomfrenchie 02:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


Wonder Spot Debate

The legal trouble would not be for you personally, it would be for Wikipedia. That is sort of a selfish way to think, but look at the odds. There is maybe a 2% chance that Wikipedia will get sued for that article. It's like file sharing of copyrighted songs. I do it. A lot of people do it. Only a few get caught. Copyright is an old concept, let's get get it. I am in favor of open information. Randomfrenchie 21:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)



Look man i'm trying to create a page True Mon Amis. Why are you deleting it and what can i do to keep it up?

Ohbabble

This page, which you recently deleted, has been recreated. Philippe Beaudette 05:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

THanks for helping to keep Graham Jessop I know it was only a stub but he is a major marine archaelogist -son of Keith Jessop which I also started. Feel free to reference Keith Jessop and expand it . Two greats!! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

just a quick reply from underdog7

sorry to edit your space here, delete this when your done, I didint know how else to communicate with you. I did my research on it before i bought it, its more of a thought that counts, I dont really care anything about the star being scientifically named. I was gonna edit it everything right before she read it...no one actually read my entry I take it. No consideration for people I guess, just the "business as usual". thanks for your input though, a little harsh though, good luck with your geek. Points to consider with you and your geek- hopefully it'll work for you 2 in spite of your cynicism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Underdog7 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 15 February 2007.

Deleted a page

Hey, you had just recently deleted the "Massive Films" article. I understand that you had a valid reason to delete that page but I just wanted to know what you actually meant by "non-notable" and also is there any way to get that information back that I wrote? Thanks --Bhavesh Chauhan 00:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Note on your recent block

The use of non-latin characters on wikipedia has been recently allowed. Please unblock the user you just blocked. Retiono Virginian 22:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Seal Finger

Thanks for the headsup. It definitely was not my intent to plagarize or infringe on a copyright. But how many more ways can one say what I said? The intent was simply to get a page started so that others would expand on it and rewrite it. AnthonyWS 23:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)