User talk:Thedreamdied

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Sonata Arctica

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia, as you did in Sonata Arctica. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links as long as the content abides by our policies and guidelines. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 14:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being mature about this, and not going down the road of WP:3RR-violations. Anyway, if you take a look at WP:EL, you'll notice that it says that links should not be included if they link to any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article. This UK website is only a forum and a picture, and does therefore not contribute to the article. Hence I removed it. Oh, and take a look at {{welcome}}. I almost forgot about that :) —♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 16:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It's ok. The ability to make a mistake has been embedded in human nature. Anyway, try using a signature (see WP:SYP), it makes replying to your comments easier.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 20:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Test articles

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -- Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 13:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the reply (sorry I've been so slow in getting back to you, I went to bed soon after posting the above message). I simply wanted to alert you to the fact that other users had tagged a number of your newly created articles for speedy deletion, because they did not appear to meet Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion. I'm not passing judgement on either their decision or your articles, but simply thought you should be alerted to that fact. BitPump would be one of those articles, but off the top of my head I simply can't remember the rest -- sorry. :( Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 22:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted articles

You should know that Wikipedia (including the deletion log) is case-sensitive, so that could be a reason why you were unable to find the articles in it. Also, I looked at BitPump before it was deleted and I have to admit that I agree on its removal. It's just one short sentence and a link to the client; it read like an advertisement.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 15:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oragen article

As you are clearly a fine example of a contributor to Wikipedia, perhaps I was a bit hasty in my editing. Should I change the 'db' tag from 'ad' to 'nocontent'? It clearly doesn't warrant an entry.

And I'll be waiting patiently for the Polyadenur entry.

Sorry about missing the ~~~~. My bad.

Retracted deletion request, but I still don't agree. You're a good negotiator, though. ;-)

Mike H 23:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Ampligen.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ampligen.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signing your posts

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] trekbbs

Thank you for your opinions in the TrekBBS AFD. I do not agree with the closing admin's decision and have listed this now under Deletion Review. As you had participated in the AFD, I wished to inform you this in case you wished to voice your opinion on this --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 17:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PureTnA

Lets do it man, lets research that bad boy and make an artical out of it!!! lol

Ferdiaob

[edit] Re: Sven Co-op

I can trust that the information is probably correct. However, one pf the main tenets of Wikipedia is Verifiability, not Truth. This, combined with no original research, means that self-verification ("playing the game") is out of the question.

In addition, WP:V also specifies that unsourced material can be removed at any time. It's also up to people who want to keep to find the sources that will get it kept. ColourBurst 21:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Napier

I thought my summary was fairly clear. Your edits aren't the issue. You misguidely working with recently vandalized content. Or, rather, content which had already been refined long ago. A GIPU had reverted to an earlier version of the article. That version had a lot of problems with it, as you could see, but these were delt with long ago. As far as I'm concerned, the GIPU commited vandalism and you're not a fault. That's it. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

i was just reverting vandilism sorry for the misitake. Sorry Cocoaguy 従って _contribs^talk Get Lost 15:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Well, in all fairness, I did ask for it with my edit summary ("readded nonsense") - I didn't think the removed section was nonsense (unnecessary and unwarrented speculation, but not 'nonsense', so I got a bit sarcastic. Sorry. Michaelsanders 18:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Flock of Dodos

I think you did a great job. It looks neutral and well-sourced to me. As always there's room for improvement but an AfD is both uncalled for and counterproductive. Deleting such an article takes much more than a flock of dodos, as long as we adhere to the rules and keep everything well-sourced. AvB ÷ talk 00:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heart Of The Universe

Why did you feel it was important to note the age and activity of my account on this talk page?--Lostcause365 22:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for your quick response. In the future, however, please note that the closing admin is expected to check the age and history of all posting users on an AFD discussion. It was a bit unsettling to see your note, but i really do appreciate your explanation and removal of the comment. Lostcause365 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/400,000 Faces

Fails:

The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for:

Trivial distribution such as hosting content on user-submitted sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, etc.)

--May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 04:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stress

Hi,

Yep, I'd say maybe 560 pages in total. You could probably talk to an admin, there might be a fancy button that would allow them to make the changes quicker. Alternatvely, make the move, then start correcting the links (I don't know if you already use it, but Popups make correcting stuff a lot easier, though correcting the redirects is an option you have to turn on) and leave a message on the talk page saying the page has been moved and we would love some help. Keep making the corrections gradually, then when they're finished, post another message saying so. If you do 10 per day, you'll be done in ... June ... Anyway, I'd help out at the minimum, others might help out as well. I'd check with an admin first though, see if there is a simple way.

WLU 11:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

That question was brought up on my editor review. You may want to look at it. Thanks! --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 01:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems fair enough. I (personally) found the edit i flagged as very patronising, but i guess thats not enough for an oppose vote. Good luck. Thedreamdied 01:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr Gow's CFS research

Hey Thedreamdied. On the weekend I watched a video presentation of Dr Gow's research into a diagnostic test for CFS, and I just wanted to say that now I better understand the optimism you displayed earlier when it was an issue on the article's talk page. It doesn't seem like this work has been properly published yet, however I read that late last year Gow and Chaudhuri applied for a European patent in relation to this procedure.[1] - Tekaphor 01:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi I've come across like a zillion one line pointless Cricket articles which I see you have also questioned for example Indian cricket team in Sri Lanka in 1973-74. What is the point in them if they remain like this forever? Should be nominate them for deletion -its not a good look for wikipedia at all - a huge template links to the same half lines articles ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 17:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CFS

Notice you contribute to this article, I would be interested in your comments on neuro-endocrinology edit and relevance of CDC work Jagra

[edit] When will someone admit HEB is a fraud?

I have suffered from CFS since 1986. It has had a major effect on my life though I would say I have been lucky to have been able to create a home business to adapt. <unsourced negative statement of fact re HEB and Ampligen deleted per WP:LIBEL by Avb (diff)> Why can no one realize thate here and why are the pages always edited when the long history is laid out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgedunn (talk • contribs) 01:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that Ampligen and HEB have had a long and troubled history, and the fault does appear to reside largely with HEB. Even so, Ampligen HAS been shown to be effective to a certain degree in some patients with CFS. And I'm very sorry you've had CFS/ME for so long, I know that it can't be any fun. And the reason it has "not been realised here" is because Wikipedia does not support biased points of view - editors have to weigh up the evidence and produce a balanced article. I'll post this conversation to your talk page as well in case you return to Wikipedia and forget that you put this here. Thedreamdied 19:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What Thedreamdied said. Avb 22:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Co-Codamol

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles, such as those you made to Co-codamol, even if your ultimate intention is to fix them. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. David Ruben ^Talk 20:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation, I was concerned having checked your past exemplary positive edit history: were you editing too many pages at once and making unintentional errors, or had your account been compromised ? If it makes you feel any better, I too got very confused as to what was being edited, as my revertion "Show preview" still seemed to read as nonsense... until I realised that there were 2 nonsense sentances at the end of that paragraph (see final clearing) ! Regards David Ruben ^Talk 00:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-oxidants

Hi Thedreamdied, a certain editor is reverting edits regarding anti-oxidants in CFS on spurious grounds. Firstly as unreliable source here which I had overturned on the WP RSN here, and now as Fringe theory, which I sure could be easily overturned, as the hypothesis is and in some cases has been tested. Rather than continue his edit war I have posted a Discussion on anti-oxidants and seek a consensus on the Talk page for an replacement section. Jagra 03:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pro Evolution Soccer

Apologies for my revert; I saw that a section of apparently legitimate content had been removed without an edit summary and automatically clicked revert. I've removed that section again now. Time3000 (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)