User talk:DragonflySixtyseven

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (April 22 2004 to September 28 2005):
• Archive 2 (September 28 2005 to February 4 2006)
• Archive 3 (February 5 2006 to May 22 2006)
• Archive 4 (May 22 2006 to August 17 2006)

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...!

Hey

I got my password. My NEW password. :) HRE 21:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Louse" misunderstanding

Please see my talk page regarding the "Yngvi is a louse" quote you cited; I had no idea of the original source/context.

--Ingeborg S. Nordén 01:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

SGGS on Meat

Many thanks for your message and willingness to help. I am open to any sensible proposals. I hope you have had a chance to read the history - If not the best place to start would be the Talk page of article. I am an administrator and for my sins a major contributor at the Sikhiwiki project. Sikhiwiki has a much smaller audience than Wikipedia but I know of the problems that this article will cause within the Sikh community due to the sensitivity of this subject. To be truthful, I was not ready to be attacked by my Christian brothers on this matter. So your help would be most welcome.

However, I hope you will agree with me when I say that I know of the problems that this matter will present within the Sikh community, when they read this page. It is purely for this reason that this article has restriction put on it. This page is intended to be just quotes from SGGS on the eating of meat and nothing else. The article clearly states the factual POV of the SGGS on this subject. It is not a subjective matter but a matter of fact – It is what the SGGS say on this matter. Any User can add to it provided it is "What the SGGS says about this matter".

The various opinions will be on the page Sikh Diet which was set up at the same time and refers to the various facts stated on the page SGGS on Meat. This scheme avoids Vandalism and is more effective in stating the true values of this religion. With this setup, very little vandalism can take place on the page SGGS on Meat and all users can state their opinions on the page Sikh Diet which should be in keeping with what the Guru has said.

This is a very important subject for the growing number of Sikhs in the worlg and it would be wrong just to delete it.

I look forward to your advice. --Hari Singh 21:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

you said "……. Many of those parables are going up for deletion debates quite soon, in fact. We could, of course, have an article about what the SGGS said, with a reference to Wikisource (if in fact the Sikh scriptures are on Wikisource)"

I would like to discourage you from considering the deletion of the parables so quickly as I think I could probably find hundreds of other articles using quotations. I setup the Quotation template some time ago and It have nearly 1000 articles using this template and there must be 1000s more.

I like the sound of SGGS and Wikisource. Unfortunately, I do not know anything about Wikisource and may be this would be the answer? Perhaps you can make some suggestions as to how this point about referring to "verbatim quotation to get a point across" can be made without "Users chewing off my fingers". Many thanks for your help. --Hari Singh 21:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Prod

Whoops, I was mixing up template with the whole prod business. I've only been here two weeks, I'm still making a mistake time to time (see my occasional minor edit adding a signature back in to various AfD posts). I've examined the template and determined that it is not exactly what I determined it to be from context of AfD discussions (it was silly of me to not go to Template:Prod and just check it out. - Thorne N. Melcher 03:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sock Puppets

The usernames were: User:Sakura avalon, User:Fascist Wikipedia, User:I am Weasel, User:SAKURA AVALON IS GIVING UP --Sakura Avalon 01:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hi, you edited my New York Legal Assistance Group page, b/c it was too much like an advertisement. I think its helpful to put more info on the page. can you maybe give me some suggestions as to what is acceptable and not? Thanks a lot : )

Hari

I fall on my sword. Assuming good faith I shall do my best to assume henceforth that his habit of spreading debate everywhere over several talk pages (but not, oddly enough, making any substantive comment as yet on the actual AfD page) is not an attempt to actually stifle debate on the issue. Thanks for intervening. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protect

Can you semi- protect my user and user talk page? Thanks.  — Invisible Robot Fish! 21:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Auto Blocked

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. I believe that I am suffering from an autoblock right now. Here are the details:

My IP address is 165.21.155.12. The name of the blocking admin is Joelr31. The reason I am blocked is: Autoblocked because my IP address has been recently used by "Huaiwei". The reason given for Huaiwei's block is: "edit warring". Please look into this matter as soon as possible. Thank You! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Kpjas' RFA

Hey DS! On Kpjas' RFA, you have voted neutral based on his apparent lack of experience ("Kpjas is a kickass editor, but an admin also has to have the requisite people skills to deal with upset contributors - and with vandals, and well-meaning POV-pushers, and curious neophytes experimenting"). In fact, Kpjas is already an admin on the Polish Wikipedia, and has 37,000 edits there, including 2,600 to WP space, and thousands of admin-related edits. You have voted neutral based on inexperience in Admin-related areas, but these facts clearly indicate plenty of experience in the required areas. DS, you want an experienced editor for admin. Kpjas is clearly experienced. Without badgering you, I urge you to reconsider your vote in this particular RfA. Happy editing! :)--Firsfron of Ronchester 07:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Venchi

Hi! I noticed you deleted a Venchi article last week; there's a new one up by the same author. Can you check it for copyvio? It's mostly advertising for the company, but I'm willing to take a stab at rewriting it to make it NPOV, if it's not just an ad. Argyriou 16:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the Venchi article; we'll see if it lasts. Argyriou 19:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice humour

Regarding [1] and user talk:superlybored: It's always nice to have an admin with a sense of humour. xD «ct» (t|e) 17:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

User boxes

I understand your position, so I will now only improve existing user boxes. Is that cool? KnoxSGT 00:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

ummm...neat?

Not sure if this is a bug or what, but I somehow edited a page you protected less than 2 minutes earlier (it may be because I had my edit screen open before you protected, which would be an exciting sort of edit conflict). It also appears to have undone the page protection, so you may want to reapply that. Sorry for any confusion (no, I don't have the rights to edit fully protected pages). -- nae'blis 18:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice humour x2

User talk:Lol fuck me lolz-Ha! Ha!!!!!.. :D. I agree with «ct It's always nice to have an admin with a sense of humour.--1568 17:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page.--1568 18:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted userbox

Hi -- this is silly, and I'm not really even a Seinfeld fan, but I was noticing that you deleted the {{User soup nazi}} userbox. I'm not really that concerned either way, but I noticed that it's still transcluded on about 190 pages. Was there a reason for its deletion, or was it Germanized to a user page? Sorry to bug you -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. From what I can see, there wasn't even a discussion on it.- JustPhil 00:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Deville's RfA

File:Scarlettanager99.jpg

Hello, Dragonfly, and thank you for the support on my recent RfA... it may not have been necessary, but it certainly was appreciated! The final tally was 72/1/0, and I have now been entrusted with the mop. I'll be tentative with the new buttons for a while, and certainly welcome any and all feedback on how I might be able to use them to help the project. All the best, and thanks again! — Deville (Talk) 02:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

GIen's RfA: Thank you!

DragonflySixtyseven for your Support! I I feel truly humbled & honored by your support in my RfA, which closed at 90 / 5 / 0. Thank you! If you need me for anything, just say the word. For now however, just like Mr Potter here: My mop & I shall thwart all evil :) IThank you once again my friend. GIen

PS: YES YOU'RE RIGHT HARRY POTTER USES A BROOM! (BUT GOOD MOPS ARE HARD TO FIND!!)

PS: Thanks for the laugh! ;)

Thanks

Thanks for the indef there, he was getting exhausting.--Crossmr 16:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Okay cool. I just get tired of people vandalizing material that I worked hard on. I also had sources on the page, but they were deleted. So it was nominated for not having sources? You see the hypocracy and source of agitation here. Is there any way I can deter vandals?

OoTV tag

I would like to inform you that the tag {{OoTV}} has been nominated for deletion. -- FrostytheSnowman ^('sup?) 20:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Your block of 152.163.100.7

Excuse me, but 152.163.100.7 is an AOL IP, so do you really think a 1-month block is appropriate? 20:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Ok, thanks for telling me. I was waiting until the editor had 20-30 edits before welcoming him/her, but for some reason I decided to hit the "new users" page and welcome a bunch of them. I'll put your advice on my "Improvements" page. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

Fashism

We'll fix it eventually :-) -- Agathoclea 13:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA message

		My RfA video message
		Stephen B Streater 08:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Do read

Please do check out my replies (on my talkpage) to you and to Ansel and please reply on my talk page

Hussain 09:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Questionable redirects

There has been questionable redirects that you made lately, i.e. JtV's template/redirect of earlier template, OoTV's template, among others. I have to ask, what is the reason for that? *confused* VelairWight 23:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirects of Vandal Templates

While the aim of reducing and simplifying templates is laudable, I think this particular method needs to be rethought. Identifying many of the vandals as "Pageblankers" is simply inaccurate, as they may have made other, more subtle but nonetheless damaging edits to an article. Also, in the cases of those who have long histories of vandalism, having a template leading to that individual's Long Term Abuse page can only serve to educate those who may otherwise just see that someone has been arbitrarily declared a vandal. As for glorifying vandals, the hardcore ones will not subside simply because they no longer have their own template, and the good faith editors would rather many of them simply go away. --BlueSquadronRaven 01:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Specifically, the redirect on Template:Loserdick was not a good solution. Some of these accounts are now falsely labelled "page blanking" when they never actually blanked pages. Asides from blanking and petty vandalism this vandal has also done things like create impostor accounts, make death threats, create accounts with offensive names for the purpose of getting blocked (and perhaps with the goal of creating a disruption at the University of Auckland), etc. The template was one way of keeping track of him (through categorisation) and directing unknowing editors to a description of his activity (through a link to his longterm abuse page). Please don't make this kind of change without prior specific discussion. --woggly 08:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And then there's MascotGuy, who AFAIK never did much page blanking but is mainly banned for chronic non-communication, and in fact would likely be unbanned if he just started using edit summaries and talk pages. Powers ^T 14:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Both these sound good arguments for going towards the more generic, "blocked for vandalism", without specifying the type. --pgk^(talk) 18:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel the same, and was surprised that when I went to the Kitten Vandal sockdrawer, most of the links had gone! The Kitten Vandal didn't just carry out page blanking, and the category [and relation to the LTA page] is very useful in fighting this vandalism. I agree with Woggly that unilaterally changing the templates was, although a good-faith action, perhaps not the most common-sense course of action ><Richard0612 ^UW 17:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Several people have said knowing a list of loads of either very obviously connected or very obviously unconnected names is somehow useful in fighting vandalism. No one has yet been able to elaborate for me, just how that information helps them. Perhaps I'm missing out on some Zen magic where perusing a long list of names enables me to notice someone blanking pages and leaving messages about killing kittens any easier. The kitten vandal certainly falls into the category of so blatant it would take a real effort to fail to notice it as vandalism. --pgk^(talk) 18:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, trying to categorize by page blanking versus page moving is tough. We should just merge all of them into "vandal". --Cyde Weys 20:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This would probably be good for generic vandals who show their faces only once or twice. For the long-term ones, I think the further education route is still best. --BlueSquadronRaven 20:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and then there's MascotGuy again, who, AFAIK, doesn't even vandalize anything. Powers ^T 23:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes.

I was shocked that the response to what still appear to me to be the right actions of a concerned editor were met with the accusations leveled at me. I've completly disengaged from Ms. Martin, and will pay specific attention to avoid her the future forever, but I can't get my mind disengaged. I've requested an apology on her talk page, which I expect would help, but whatever. I'll just take a break if I can't figure out how to walk away from it - life is far, far too short. JBKramer 20:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Having read [WP:ANI#User:Lkinkade_and_Pooh-related_articles|this] (MISTAKE 1) I looked at the various articles and the split of them looked stupid to me. Seeing that one person I respected had said that undoing the change was easy, I took the actions to undo them ([2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]) (summary- unsplit the 4 pooh related articles and nominated the split off articles for deletion, mentioned my actions on the talk page of the individual who did the split). I then engaged in what I believed was productive but not perfect editing with Ms. Martin [14], and attempted to engage anyone in discussion on the talk page [15]).

Reviewing my watchlist to see if anything else needed doing, I saw this, which angered me. I responded, perhaps with a bit too much heat and snark, here.

Returning to my watchlist, I saw this repeated three times, and became angry. I attemted to disengage temporarily here and here, but failed internally, and gave up after getting this, specifically "I thank you for your confirmation that your AfD nominations were, in fact, in bad faith, and hope that you will therefore do the right thing and withdraw them." I have been unable to fully establish equlibrium since, and posted this and this, the final how I assumed you found me. JBKramer 20:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

John Lake

DS --

Thanks for your kind comments. Yes, John Lake is my father. I appreciate your help with links/edits very much.

I will have a web page up on Friday: www.johnlake.com. Do you suppose I should list it as an external link? Also, I have uploaded a few photos (johnlake.jpg and johnlake9-67.jpg) but I'm having problems resizing them. I welcome your assistance -- I was going to post them on the right side of the page w/ text wrapped around.

Again, thanks. I welcome your feedback.

DS -- Please tell me what you'd like as references and I'd be happy to provide them. I have all his clippings, from the Binghamton News Press (1956-1960), the Herald Tribune (1960-1964) and Newsweek (1964-1967). He also wrote a book: Jim Ryun: Master of the Mile, which was published shortly after he disappeared, in early '68. The comments from Benchley, Andretti and Sugar are from interviews I conducted. Benchley is dead, but I have some e-mail correspondence. Sugar and Andretti are alive; I have notes. I can also ask others to verify my statements and chronology if that would be helpful (such as Jeremy Schaap, Ed Kosner, former editor of the Daily News and Newsweek, Jerry Izenberg of the Newark Star Ledger, who was a young gun with my father at the Trib, etc.) If possible, please write to me at my e-mail address, which I check much more frequently than this site. Thanks again -- EL.

Bring back WP:BUBU!!!

The article "Wikipedia:Blocked users with bizarre usernames" should not have been deleted. Why? Because BJAODN doesn't glorify vandals. It glorifies humor. People have the right to show their sense of humor outside of Wikipedia. However, pasting humor on an article on Wikipedia is considered vandalism, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This page is not a Wikipedia article- it is a Wikipedia page. The humor was deleted from Wikipedia, but lives at this page. This page's URL begins with en.wikipedia.org, but is not part of Wikipedia, because it's not an article. Since people have the right to show there sense of humor (however stupid) outside of Wikipedia, the humor should remain, and none of the BJAODN pages should be deleted. Of course, writing this isn't of much use, because I don't know of any way to restore the article! SupaStarGirl 12:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I've been called totally derranged at User_talk:Afrika paprika. Perhaps a warning from a third party might be listened to? --HolyRomanEmperor 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

(moved from userpage) For reverting my vandalised user page :) TruthCrusader 14:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

anon IP user page

I sympathize with your annoyed comment on the talk page of the anon who diddled with urban legend - I, too, am sick to death of seeing articles replaced with the all-purpose insult from the proto-teen set: GAY (all caps, of course).

I have often had to drag my fingers from the keyboard to keep from typing similar responses. But I do restrain myself, because think it's more effective to leave dry, template "your test worked and has been removed" or "you have been blocked" reponses. I think a comment like yours is far more likely to inflame the poster and make him/her (who am I fooling? him) come back with more vandalism of the "I'll show them!" variety. A legalistic response may not scare him off, but at least it won't feed the temper tantrums. IMHO, of course. - DavidWBrooks 18:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

User 'HolyRomanEmperor'

...insulted me calling me Internet troll at User_talk:Afrika paprika. He also keeps vandalising the article Pagania reverting the NPOV version made by Pannonian to his nationalistic version. Afrika 21:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Complaint about blocking

G'day DragonflySixtyseven,

A user from AOL said that you placed a block on his IP as follows.

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by DragonflySixtyseven for the following reason (see our blocking policy): user is idiot Your IP address is 152.163.100.66.

Due to the way AOL has its internet access set up, many other AOL users may have seen this message.

Could you please advise of the circumstances in which it was left. Capitalistroadster 04:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Kayah Li

I have to say, I think Tobias' complaint about the speedy deletion of a writing systems stub was justified. Many people are active on many scripts in that category, and it takes time to get it done. We need those stubs. Some of the janitorial work done by admins isn't helpful to editors. Evertype 20:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: "updated DYK - woohoo!"

In the future, please copy and paste the new entries and image information into the previous code (to avoid introducing errors) and use the "Show preview" button to verify that everything is correct. Thank you! —David Levy 21:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for updating DYK. However, the entries you selected are still showing up in the nominations as well. Could you archive them to avoid confusion -- Lost^(talk) 21:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for putting the DYK nom on my talk page in the correct place. In the past, I always had to do it myself:) -- Lost^(talk) 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Attempt to improve

Please see Template:Religious extremism.--Patchouli 02:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• I can't come up with a civil substitute for "fuckwits".--Patchouli 02:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to "clerics".--Patchouli 02:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

User is idiot

im not an idiot --205.188.116.13 13:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you protect it?

I need to get my thoughts in order. The attacks just won't stop. It would give me a break. I'm not participating in Wikipedia anymore, but I would like my page left along until my head stops spinning. I don't suppose you could do that for my talk page too? If not, then the User Page Please. Mattisse(talk) 22:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Is there a place I can go to read up on the ramifications of these choices? And how to disappear forever? Mattisse(talk) 22:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Theat was my grauddaughters page

She stayed at my hous for a few days and used it. She got into a lot of trouble at Wikipedia because she was only in the eight grade and I had to be gone. It was suggested to me before that I delete her page after. Now that I am leaving Wikipedia I was going to fulfill that task.

But you are saying I can't? She is 3,000 miles away and will never use wikipedia again, from what she says. I don't think she remembers the name. I just came across a link to her User name going through my email, or I would not have remembered it either. Someone had sent me the link to her page, suggesting I remove it. I didn't do it then, and I can't now you say? Mattisse(talk) 23:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please delete it. Mattisse(talk) 23:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Is there a way to change my username with out others knowing what the new one is? I cchanged my name from my real name a couple of months ago I guess. (I started here in the middle of May.) In an ugly admin complaint, two different people brought up me real name -- when I had told no one. This act plunged me into irrationality. I want a name that has no meaning and no connection with my real identity. Some one recently wrote on my talk page about my occupation. So there is some way people find out very easily, especially the one's that want to harm you, when you have changed your name. I can't risk that again. Is there another way? Mattisse(talk) 23:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Playing computer solitaire on Wikipedia!

Guess I should have put this answer on your page (I'll never get the hang of how to respond!) Response:

I don't want to abandon my edit history becaue I did good work and felt pride in it. And I am a writer and an editor in my profession as well as a practitioner. That is the only pleasurable part of this place. But I can't have people bringing up my past and my occupation and using it against me. From what you are saying it sounds hopeless. I'll just stop. Take another name and not do anything serious, just fiddle around so my edit won't matter, won't be an issue of pride. (I feel I was driven to "misbehaving" because I had no way to protect myself and I couldn't take it forever - but if I have no investment I won't care - so new name, and just playing around sounds like the way to go.) Mattisse(talk) 00:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Infactation

While infactation may be a made up word, but unlike most made up words, it was constructed of a reasonable prefix, root, and suffix. I backed it up with an accurate definition, an etymology, and examples of use. I looked through the quick deletes and did not see "made up" on the list, but I may have missed it. If you can cite where it says this if I have missed it, then I shall rest my case. Otherwise, the word deserves a fair trial. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelo80 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NFT -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. I didn't make the word up for purposes of randomness, but in an attempt to convince people it was a word. I would be glad if someone could tell me how to prove that a word has been accepted in the language, I would be grateful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelo80 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of civil engineering quiz

Dear DragonflySixtyseven,

I am new and wrote in my view an article on the importance of quizzes for engineering studies.

Would you be so kind and elaborate on the reasons for deleting this article.

Thank you,

cailler

civil engineering quiz on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of civil engineering quiz. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

Tobias Conradi redux

Hi, since you unblocked Tobias Conradi (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) early last time, I wanted you to know I've just blocked him again. He's not taking to heart the advice you gave him (since it's like what he got before)... The incident is on WP|ANI, and I would really appreciate your reaching consensus with other admins before deciding to unblock early, should you be thinking of it. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 07:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Stingray

Please do not add nonsense to my user chat page when I have been trying to help edit out the vandalism people have been doing to the page. Thank you.--Thinkharder 16:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. Also, sorry to put this in the wrong place at first. Thinkharder 16:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming Users

Hi!

Thanks for your comment on my talk page about welcoming users to Wikipedia before they have made an edit.

It is my firm belief that someone should not have to do something in order to be recognised. Rather, it is my opinion they should be recognised with a view in prompting them to go on and become successful, constructive members of the encyclopedia.

As such, would you be so kind as to point out to me the Wikipedia Policy that states that a user should not be given a welcome message until they have made an edit.

Thanks and regards, Ale_Jrb^talk 22:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm being reasonably careful

What I posted was safe. I think that is a much as I'm prepared to say in public.Geni 01:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO!

Oh, Lord...I can't type, I'm laughing so hard!! I love it!! Thought it was time to "come out of the closet" rather than slink around as an anon. Your faithful sack, Lucky 6.9 17:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Zombie guy

I did think about it -- then I looked at his other contributions since being unblocked, including this and this, and they didn't make me feel much like changing my decision. Let me know if you feel strongly otherwise -- thanks, NawlinWiki 18:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OTRS

At WP:OTRS, we are looking for a few more seasoned Wikipedians who can keep their cool. Would you be interested in signing up for a 90 day rotation through the wringer that OTRS has become? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Mikhail Lebedev

This year, I was trolling the page Mikhail Lebedev. I meant it to be a bad joke but it is now ruining the scientist's reputation, as well as the privacy of many other legitimate researchers. Can you please delete the slander on the pages (Afd, talk page, and page itself) for me? You can delete the page if it is necessary. Thanks a lot. --GoOdCoNtEnT 22:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on Free Fallin'

Don't you think this is a little harsh? You disagree with an unsourced contribution, and you're threatening with a one-month block? I'd hate to see you in a major editing dispute. Supadawg (talk • contribs) 01:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page. Please keep any comments there, to make the conversation easier to follow. Supadawg (talk • contribs) 02:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Page Views

DS, is there a way to track page views on a particular article?

Thanks ~~ EL

Dragon

I understand and I appreciate your feed back to me and I will make quick amends to change it, but I do disagree with any accusation made towwrds me concerning the remark of effectively spamming people, as I do not practice nor do I engage in spamming people www.geocities.com/berniethomas68 03:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been changed now and I thank you for extending kindness and courtesy to me through my profile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 03:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Excessive concern for procedure

Please read my last edit summary on that article. I'm grateful that you didn't revert me, but I still got a message telling me I "went at it the wrong way" when I was giving my time to preserve the integrity of this resource, in the absence of anyone else who was bothered about the inclusion of that piece of spam. Your telling me to list the article for deletion illustrates well your apparent belief that procedure is all-important. As far as I'm concerned, I deleted the article by removing its content. Please take a step back and look at what you are doing. Wikipedia gets so wrapped up in its own byzantine procedural nonsense that it fails to recognise the real problem: so much of the content is biased, unreferenced, inaccurate or otherwise flawed. You should be thanking me for blanking that article. 86.134.211.242 19:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't know about you, but I'd rather readers came across a "confusing" note explaining to them why a page had been removed (whatever the underlying technical reality, which is irrelevant to the average reader in most cases) than a disgusting publicity piece ripped off a corporate website and presented to the world as an encyclopedia article, with all the scholarly connotations that term bears. To answer your question, I don't wish to become a registered user while Wikipedia—which I do care about, and see as having great potential—remains lacking in several respects. Firstly, it needs to adopt a much more cautious and thorough academic approach, such that an article like the one just deleted could never make it onto the site in the first place. Secondly, it needs to take mild measures to seperate the wiki process, which makes the project so vibrant and interesting, from the finished content presented to the reader. It's no good writing an article if someone who doesn't know what they're talking about can come along and ruin it, requiring constant vigilance on the part of expert authors to revert the nonsense that's introduced by allowing edits to even the most polished articles to take effect immediately without any process of peer review or approval. Thirdly, it needs to address its appalling problem of bias towards the Anglophone western world in general, and the United States in particular. I can't take Wikipedia seriously when I look up Georgia and get a 'disambiguation' page instead of an article because there is a U.S. state of the same name. I suspect in the coming years as Wikipedia matures and is forced to face its shortcomings, some of these issues will be resolved. If that happens I'll be pleased to join you and contribute my efforts to the project. 86.134.211.242 19:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Civil engineering quiz

Hello,

Thank you for your comment. I shall consider that you are right but I do think that a simple word from you before deletion would have been more appropriate. By the way, I need this "article" for something else and would be grateful if you could advise me on how to recover it?

Thanks, Cailler

Oh yes!

Bless you for your closing comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cookiholic. Dealing with AfD properly is always such a slog that I cherish little scraps of relief like this. Thanks, William Pietri 22:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chapter Zero

Why did you speedily delete the article? I can't see any explanation in your deletion summary or the AfD. Thanks, alphaChimp^(talk) 04:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

first off, I nominated the article, so I don't disagree with the deletion. If I had felt it was a CSD case, I would have deleted it sometime ago. I just feel that you went out of process in deleting the article. You've been deleting a lot of articles before the 5 days are up (e.g. before the author has time to respond). Is there any precedent for this? alphaChimp^(talk) 01:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'm sorry if that comment seemed vitriolic. I've never really seen that done before. But maybe I'm missing stuff...I dunno. alphaChimp^(talk) 05:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

hi.

This is Anant I just received a message from wikipedia that i have been blocked from editing. The message mentioned ur username as admin.

Kindly tell me the reason for blockage so that in future i may not violate rules of wikipedia.

reply me on [email protected]

Waiting for ur response

Miklós Horthy vs. Vrba-Wetzler report

Hi! Regarding your recent edit at Miklós Horthy: what kind of an indication is there that his behavior was "spurred" by the Vrba-Wetzler report? He could only have received the report sometime at the end of April when he was de facto not in power anymore, so this wording is kind of an exaggeration IMO. KissL 14:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've found a good source and edited the Miklós Horthy article accordingly. Could you please check if you find the result balanced enough? Thanks, KissL 16:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

71.250.179.101

I don't know if you remember this AFD that you closed recently, but this anon evidently was not happy that was deleted and has gone around tagging obviously valid companies for deletion. I've been keeping an this, but I thought you'd like to know as well :).RN 18:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Email deleted article

Hello DS,

Please email the content of the deleted article civil engineering quiz.

Cheers, Cailler 06:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Niglet"

It seems that you deleted & protected the "niglet" "article" because people have been using it to say really bad and dirty things. I think this should be made into a redirect, perhaps to "List of ethnic slurs" or "Nigger" and protected so it cannot be made into anything _but_ a redirect. 70.101.145.211 08:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright question

My original post on Wikipedia was removed. I received a message from you saying: "Thank you for contributing an article to Wikipedia. However, for legal reasons, we cannot accept material that is copied from external websites." The material I used was formed my own website. How would I go about getting around this problem? The responses that I have received have not helped whatsoever. Thanks Food Safety Network 18:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've Responded

On my Talk page. I hope you'll find it frank, but civil. I appreciate your responding. Eleemosynary 06:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Information

Could you possibly help me out DS by checking this, User_talk:Seasalt#Ducati_Pantah_Speedy_Deletion , and telling me what you can? I'm a guy you welcomed that filled out Daimler_Majestic_Majorif that helps. Seasalt 11:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion Missing Element in Decisions to Delete

Some discussion prior to deleting pages that are obviously NOT spam or vanity based might actually improve the quality and growth of the wiki. I was disappointed to hear that MangoFalls was 'not notable' for you. I'm certain the thosands of daily repeat visitors, many yearning for a connection to their mid-century childhood, would feel otherwise. Aquasparkle 15:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind

I took myself the liberty of updating your editcount link at your user page. Cheers, mate! --HolyRomanEmperor 19:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Amphilochios

The article that I have written on Saint Amphilochios that you deleted without any preceding remark is my own work. I have written it personally. The fact that I also published it at my journalspace Saint Job blog does not give a right to delete it, as the source is me, my personal writing on Saint Amphilochios. There are no other materials in English on saint Amphilochios in English. As Ukrainian speaker I used Ukrainian sources that I will cite below the article. If I wish to contribute my writing (not other's) to wikipedia I have such right! I have republished the article. Roman Zacharij 15:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The sources are clearly cited below the page. And information on the life of the saint is verified. If you are an atheist, you have no right to dictate with your narrow atheistic and materialistic outlook. The lives of thousands of saints contained countless miracles and this can not be so easlily dismissed. Try to be more objective, if your atheistic fallouts persist violating others' freedom I will report you! Roman Zacharij 15:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Poltergeist (film series)

I was wondering why you reverted the edits I made. Cbrown1023 22:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that I must have forgot to put an edit summary because of all the text I had to move and make sure was not accidentally omitted. I also noticed the servers were working very slow today, it kind of sucks. Cbrown1023 22:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Peace be upon him (Islam) double redirects

Hello! It seems when you moved Peace be upon him in Islam to Peace be upon him (Islam) a few days ago, you forgot to check for double redirects created by the move. There were about ten or so; I've fixed them. In the future, it would be a good idea to check for double redirects after moving a page. If there are a lot, several bots can fix them for you. That's all. Happy editing! --Slowking Man 03:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

About Image:Princenikolai.jpg

I tagged it as CSD I6 because it had no fair use rationale. If you think that this image is worth keeping, could you write a fair use rationale for this photo? Thanks. I was tagging it since it did fit CSD I6 for no rationale. Somebody else reverted the removal of the tag, by the way. Jesse Viviano 20:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Lok Sabha Contituencies

Hi DragonflySixtyseven, These pages are already linked here. Many of the pages are already created. So I have tried to use the same format. I don't know who has taken the initiative. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Two strikes policy?

It makes sense to me, but I've never heard of it before. Is there an active/suggested policy page on it? (I searched and couldn't find it.) Or is it just a simple way of expressing placing the blatantvandal and test4 templates on a user's talk page within minutes of each other and having the person vandalise again a couple minutes later, thus a non-admin would place a note on WP:AIV for an admin's review? TransUtopian 04:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I like that. Thanks for the explanation and the pointer. TransUtopian 22:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Rachelle Leah

Do you mind adding the Rachelle Leah article to your watchlist or perhaps taking some other measure? I think semi-protection is way too drastic at this point, but IP addresses recently have been adding false information to her bio about her dating Dana White. They're doing it maliciously, too. Thanks. Chicken Wing 22:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Afrika paprika

Afrika paprika has gone too far. Despite I pointed out WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPA (on User_Talk:Afrika paprika) - Afrika showed that he actually never read them. Additionally, he openly admitted that he will make no discussions whatsoever and continue to edit-war on Pagania, Zachlumia, Doclea and Travunia (despite being invited to discuss by me and other people on Talk:Pagania, Talk:Travunia). He also misinterpreted the WP:3RR rule despite being numerious times blocked for it and considered me a coward for reporting him. His good faith is also questionable after seeinf his edits on Ivana Milicevic and his arguements how Bosnians don't really exist. Also, he keeps editing the Croats article and despite asked on Talk:Croats#Afrika_paprika by User:Duja to cite sources, he reverted back, and more than once. Then, he did an edit (see this diff) on Operation Storm which is not a content dispute - but vandalism in truth. Despite administrator User:ChrisO pointed him out that that's clearly vandalism, he continued to endorse it.

Its a pity that I ask you to do this - because I in truth consider the Pagania article a little one-sided, but Afrika paprika brings no good to it. According to Wikipedia:Blocking policy (especially under Blocking_policy#Disruption and more percisely Blocking_policy#Vandalism), Wikipedia's policy defines Afrika paprika a "good" candidate for a block that exceeds 24h. Thanks in advance and sorry to bother you. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Fighting vandalism

Hi. I am a "wannabe" anti-vandalism cadet, and I've just found your username in the list of the recent reverts. The tutorial thought me how to deal with vandalism, but I still have some questions.

• What should some "minuteman", that means not an admin or an elite changes patroller do in case of reverting?
• Should I just revert the article, and let others decide what to do with the user? (warnings, ban, etc.)
• If just one paragraph is modified, should I consider a partial revert to save bandwith and storage space?
• What happens, if in the time I am just in the middle of reverting, somebody else has just did it before I hit the save button?
• What warning template is recommended fore cases like John_Kyrle_High_School ?

Sorry if I've just annoyed you with my questions.. in this case please redirect me to an appropriate article/faq/tutorial --V. Szabolcs 22:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Front organization

I noted that you were one of the admins involved in the Front Organization article this weekend. I respect your motives, but after reading the edits and comments made by the administrators involved, I feel it was a severe lack of judgement on their part to behave as they did.

I have tried to clean up the article as best I can, but any help you can offer would be appreciated.

Regards, Blainetologist 16:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Mark Foley

The only IP edits there seemed to be productive. Would you object to my unprotecting for now? If it becomes an issue we can always re-semi. JoshuaZ 20:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the recent edits from IPs have been quite good. I'm going to be online for the next 30 minutes and will keep a strict watch until then (I'll ask some other users to keep an eye on it also after that). It seems to me to be both inadvisable and against the spirity of wiki to pre-emptively semi-protect and I don't see a policy basis for it either. Many new users are drawn in precisely by the lure of current events articles and semi-protecting all scandals would cut down on that recruitment massively. JoshuaZ 20:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Tetrazene ES-50

Just curious.... Taterazene ES-50 was deleted because it was considered "spam", but why do other products like hydroxycut and trimspa stay? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxycut http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrimSpa

Block action

I've been away for most of the day, and will be for a few more hours. If you are referring to a block I did today, hopefulyy this will answer your question, if not I'll be back in a few hours. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 20:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

De-blocking

Thanks a lot (being blocked in the first place was ridiculous), and I like how the template looks. The problem is... as you soon shall see... Koavf won't. It has to be "his" way. This is what Dudesleeper and I have been having to deal with for the last while. BGC 03:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised. But we'll have to wait and see what he does. Personally, I think it should stay as it presently is. BGC 03:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting my "bajoonga" page? I understand that you are from Canada and therefore may not understand that Bajoonga is a word that has come to replace other fad words over the last few years where i'm from. I discovered that there was no coverage of it anywhere on the net (which is fair enough) and so i got an account with wikipedia in order to make it aware to those from other areas and countries and also to inform younger people of the appropriate usage of it. It is not "random crap" as you claim, if it was then i wouldn't even bother. Seeing as you are the admin guy then you have the power and the overriding decision as to whether it should be on or not, but before you accuse me of "trying to be funny" i ask you to consider that despite how silly it may sound, it is used more often where i'm from than many other words.

Thanks Bajoonga

Jackamundoe

• Which ties in with the comment I was about to make: I really dig your edit summaries.  :) Flush away, DF67! - Lucky 6.9 15:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Argentine football

Hi there, I'm back from my wikibreak, I've been working on lower league Argentine football teams. It probably seems a bit pointless to some people, but I think its worthwhile.

The reason I'm contacting you is that someone deleted one of my articles, without any warning or debate.

I wonder if you have the power to find out who deleted it, what justification they had, (other than a hatred of minor Argentinian football clubs) and whether it is possible to reinstate it without rewriting it completely.

The article was entitled 9 de Julio de Rafaela, it belongs in Template:Torneo Argentino A.

Cheers, King of the North East 18:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Perfect Highway

Hii,

Thanks a lot for the comments! We are trying to record more stuff and as soon as anything comes out I'll drop in a line. Thanks a lot again! Cheers!! Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 04:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Mendelson's defense team

Stravinsky's defense team is back again under the name Mendelson's defense team and vandalizing again. [16] wikipediatrix 15:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Deletion?

From my talk page:

You said: "I have lost count (well, actually it was two times) on how many times I looked on wikipdia for some article, only to find out that the article existed, but was deleted."

Could I ask what they were? DS 13:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for being late, but I'm quite inactive in wikipedia now. Anyway, the articles were Lonelygirl15 and Goblins (webcomic). They are online now, but were deleted for some time. Shure they aren't great articles, but the problem was that, when I came for wikipedia looking for information, I didn't found it, but this wasn't because the info wasn't there, it was bacause someone deleted it. algumacoisaqq 22:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Popples article

This article will need a clean-up. The date it said it first aired was 1985, but on the Internet Movie Database [17], TV.com, and on most websites, it said it first aired in 1986. So, the actual original air date of Popples was 1986, not 1985. --PJ Pete

Shall try

Reference

Hello friend, meeting you after a long long gap. I will try to gather some information about him. I think asking some one from Kerala would be more helpful as he belonged to Kerala. I will try to do this. --Bhadani 11:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

VERY daring issue

On User_talk:Afrika paprika in 00:17, 30 September 2006 Afrika paprika said It has to do that MOST of the ransacking, looting and killing was made on the Serbian and the fact that the Serbian side was the FIRST TO INSTIGATE such behaviour. Unlike Croatian war crimes which were individual retribution acts, Serbian side committed crimes with the intent and forethought to commit them. And then in 20:42, 4 October 2006 he wrote: I do not condone retribution however I do understand why some people couldn't help themselves....especially when I do not know how I would react under such circumstances. After I personall asked him how does he explain such things, he said this in 21:12, 4 October 2006: Perhaps you cannot....most likely because you havent lost anyone the way I did. Perhaps because you didn't go through what I went through and what my family went through, what my friends went through. And then when I think that there were people who had far worse things happen to them yes I must say I can definately understand them.

Then I said: I suffered a lot. Me and my family; a lot more than most people did and especially a lot did suffer my sister; and out of that all I only learned the true filth of mankind. I find th Yugoslav wars disguisting; all sides were tainted; moreso since I saw it first hand - and it seems that you learned percisely contrary to what you should - there is no justification for a crime and goals do not justify the means. I am sad that you didn't learn that and that you try to understand evil. --PaxEquilibrium 19:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And then he replied: I did learn...above all things I learned very well who shot at me while I was still just a kid, who killed and exiled my family, who bombarded my home town on daily basis... All sides did commit crimes but none to such a level and brutality as the Serbs. What you had happened to you can be thanked to the Serbian terrorists and leaders who deluded Serbian people in Croatia for their own personal gain. Afrika Paprika 21:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't tell me that that does not deserve a chill-off block. --PaxEquilibrium 18:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Pardon the third-party butting in.. but people who grow up in violent circumstances will understandably have strong feelings about those they see as responsible. This looks like a political disagreement - such things should never result in a block. Do you really think a "cool-off" block can change opinions someone has had their whole life? Also, it doesn't even look to me like you guys are discussing a particular article, so I don't see how this conversation is even relevant to the project at all. Friday (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Stickam

I heard people talking about Stickam like it's popular so I looked it up on wikipedia. And hi I saw you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stickam. Well the AFD said it was spam and such so it might be a terrible article. If there was something decent about it, could you email me what it said please? Thank you. Anomo 01:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I never got a reply from you. Anomo 22:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops that was HappyCamper I really wanted to here back from. You know, about 3 hours ago before seeing your reply I got a popunder ad by Stickam and I racked by brain trying to remember where I saw that name before totally forgetting where. Anomo 02:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Staytrix

Hi, you deleted this article saying it was advertising. I was in the process of cleaning it up because I felt that it was notable in European leagues and among some NHL goalies, and particularly for creating a mask that was featured in the Hockey Hall of Fame (Ken Wregget's Batman mask). Could you please undelete it? I've cleaned it up. --Wafulz 22:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm heading out now. If you decide to undelete it, the clean version is here. --Wafulz 22:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleting "London Revolution"

Thanks for the welcome.

Deleting my article "London Revolution" you said "At this time, Ultimate Frisbee teams do not qualify for Wikipedia articles."

I'm a bit puzzled because of articles existing such as Vancouver Furious George and Seattle Sockeye. I hope you can add further clarification on this point. Many thanks. Garnett.

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! --Siva1979^{Talk 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)

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, [18], is the same as [19]. 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)

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 [20] 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)

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)

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)

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

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)