User talk:Deepfriedokra/2009/apr

Happy New Year!

Dear Dlohcierekim,

Wishing you a happy a new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 20:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Lorrenzo Wade

Re: you message on the Lorrenzo Wade talk page ...

Google News hits don't define notability. There are countless news articles about sports teams that identify members of the teams, even if they don't play in the game. That's just the way sports are reported. To define notability in sports, one needs several significant events, not just that a player played the sport. There are several discussions about WP:ATHLETE and sports notability at Wikipedia talk:Notability (athletes). Feel free to participate. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD of Erin McCarley

An article that you have been involved in editing, Erin McCarley, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin McCarley. Thank you. CyberGhostface (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Jesse J. McCrary, Jr.

Already in the Category:Secretaries of State of Florida subcategory. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Message

Sorry I don't understand. If I try and revert a blanking by a page author, huggle will tell me to tag it for speedy deletion instead. Huggle did not so you must be mistaken. If I am wrong, please accept my apologies. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 23:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand. There was already a {{db-self}} template on the page, so when I reverted it went back to the version with the speedy deletion tag. Normally Huggle will ask if you want to add a deletion tag if the author blanked the page. You might know more about Huggle than me- it's not what usually happens. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 23:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Must be a flaw with Huggle. WP:CSD#G7 allows for the creator to blank the page. It would not be appropriate to revert, with or without Huggle. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

re your attempted edits to ollies talk page Dlohcierekim, {{tl|db-self}} works best, it gives {{db-self}}--Jac16888 (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Constructive Critisism

I wish to bring to note the fact that you were involved in the deletion of a perfectly valid new article without giving any real reason. I would like to stress my feelings in a most polite but firm manner in saying that I strongly believe this was a welcome contribution. I will be expecting to see the return of the article entitled "Daffid's Epic Chin" and leave this duty in your hands as I feel I should not have to take care of this matter myself after spending my time in creating the informative article which I believe would have been in the interest of many readers. I would say to you that because of you, Wikipedia, as a whole, will be missing out on some vital and thought provoking information. Once again, I expect to see my article return in the very near future,

Yours Faithfully, Chegman (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have left Mr. Chegman a note on civility. And the "article" was obviously vandalism. — Satori Son 21:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to apologise to both Dlohcierekim and Satori Son for one particular line that I seem to have used in my original post. I may have been slightly annoyed by the unprompted deletion of the aforementioned article. I most definitely did not intend this as an attack as I was in the middle of changing the main offending line when I received the message from Satori Son. However, in sticking with the theme of my original post, I still believe that there was no sufficient explanation for the deletion of my article. I spent a considerable amount of time in composing that article, which, frankly, if I had known this would be the outcome I would have spent in doing something else which may have been appreciated. I also strongly protest to the fact that it has been dubbed as "Vandalism." I find this extremely hurtful as I wrote the article with the best of intentions to contribute towards this magnificent and ever-growing website, and having it, metaphorically speaking, "tossed aside" is rather upsetting. The statement in which I stated that I expect to see the return of the article still applies and I still leave this in your hands, which I am sure will prove entirely capable.

Yours Faithfully Chegman (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

My reply. Dlohcierekim 23:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Gabriel Ugliano restored

actually, not an attack page. Actually a fictional character. Dlohcierekim 02:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, right, in that case I'm going to hide behind A1, not enough context to figure out the subject. Thanks for the undelete and fixup anyway. --fvw* 02:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

relevance of the marines article to James Zoll

In the article James Zoll, the cited page (www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005smallarms/agenda.pdf) was proving that he was in fact in the US army, and he was the chairman of the conference for military Weapons and Ammunition.

As for information on his musical career, I was about to edit that in when but it was deleted http://drzoll.webs.com/—Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyninjas (talk • contribs)

Castle Hotel, Halton

Saved; thanks for your speedy support. It sounds as if Runcorn has about the same population as Largo! If you want info about the grading system of our listed buildings it is included in Listed buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire which is currently a FLC. Or even more info from English Heritage. Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Your are welcome. It was my pleasure. And thanks for the links. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool tools

See: User talk:Inclusionist#Cool Tools travb (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability is not confirmed on Danielle Fountain

I have to politely disagree with your call on changing the Speedy Delete on Danielle Fountain to a prod, based on your claim that there is an assertion of notability because of the article's claim that Ms. Fountain and her bandmates registered "over 3 million hits" on YouTube for their version of a song "Luv Addict" and "Decode." I just went to YouTube and ran checks to see these videos. These were the messages I received:

No videos found for “fufu luv addict”

No videos found for “fufu decode”

In view of this, it appears the original Speedy Delete request was justified and that assertion of notability is nonexistent. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

PS It appears this may be a hoax, as a Google search of Danielle Fountain and Fufu turns up absolutely nothing: [1]. In fact, nothing asserted about Danielle Fountain can be confirmed online. Something odd is afoot. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

PPS I have removed the prod tag and put up a G3. In view of the research I've done, I am convinced this is a blatant hoax. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. The interpretation of significance and notability is often subjective -- I saw the claims in the original text to be highly dubious, which is why I went for A7 rather than a prod. However, in digging deeper, I realised this article was a phony. I am glad that we were able to work together and have this taken off the site. As always, it is a pleasure to work with you. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

link to part on Eco's talk page. Dlohcierekim 20:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ecoleetage (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Eight Days To Live

I'm a moron. I thought I had checked and found it to be the first entry, which was why I was marking it for deletion. In any case, thanks! ~ Parasane (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really. I've deleted articles that same way. We are not perfect. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: 5.999... approaches, but does not equal 6

Hmm, I was a bit confused at that.

On a side note, that radar animation of Barry 07 on your userpage caught my eye. :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it wasn't exactly a powerhouse storm, but we got a bit of rain from it here in New York. It was fun to track, at least. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The numbers

I see we are both members of the 30,000 edits high club! Interesting to see my 2006 comments on RfA here. Fortunately they still make sense to me... Ty 00:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Look into my eyes, not around the eyes, into my eyes ...

One day you'll realise that I'm almost always right,[2] and then everything will fall into place. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

• edit
• Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Dealing with copyright violations

No. Quite the contrary, in fact. We don't create derivative works from copyright violations, which is what editorially revising them does. The very good reason that {{copyvio}} points to a new page, where an article is started from scratch, is that the replacement that we create must not be derived from the copyrighted work, because otherwise it would be just as much a violation of copyright. This is also the very good reason that we have to lose all later edits when reverting past a copyright violation to a prior non-infringing version. One should not editorially revise a copyright violation, including editing it to re-word it. It should be removed, either by reversion to a non-infringing version or deletion, and fresh content written from scratch. Uncle G (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not derivative if I say it in my own words. Which I did. My dad was a hairdresser. Ya gotta know these things, when your dad does hair for a living. Nothing remarkable about this info. Any hairdresser could tell you. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Ya'alon quotation

==Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Ya'alon quotation

Would you be willing to vote to merge into the Moshe Ya'alon article?Historicist (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

HI!

I saw you edited the article on John Stansel Taylor, and I thought that was awesome, since John S. Taylor is my great grandfather :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.0.95 (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hate

Although we've had our differences, there is no hate. :) — Realist² 01:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

comment from user unhappy with speedy deltion

moved by me to bottom of page

I also would like to protest a claim made by you on 15JAN2009 on article the Lupopotumus. I have a copy of the article, and it was definately perfectly coherent. Do YOU live in Sodus NY. Do YOU know about the local lupopotumus legend. DO YOU LIVE IN FEAR OF GOING TO THE SUPERMARKET? WE DO. Deleting this article was an abomination, especially for the reasons you gave. As you can see from this message, I clearly have the ability to write coherently. Don't edit things you know nothing about.

On reviewing this, I stand by my deletion. Looks like BS at best, vandalism at worst. In the article, you give an obnoxious psuedo Linnaean classification. Of course, there are no reliable sources for this. The article name looks like a portmanteau of someone's name and "hippopotomus," thus I suspect this is a thinly veiled Attack page. The sum of the content, in light of all else, makes me feel deleting this as nonsense rather than as vandalism or an attack page was fairly generous and open-minded. If you believe that this page does in fact serve as an Encyclopedia article, that the subject not only exists, but has WP:reliable sources with verifiable information then I suggest you appeal at deletion review. Bear in mind that this looks like an attempt insult, denigrate, harass or humiliate a living person. Wikipedia has no tolerance for such. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 17:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm writing this to let you know that this artical was created as a part of a media studies project on wikipedia. I was doing research on vandalism, spamming, etc, and wikipedia's deletion policy. I hope there are no hard feelings, and I don't plan on trying this again. Just know that in dealing with this study in the way you did, you have seriously helped wikipedia's cause (at least in my paper). The article was meant to do no harm to anyone, just to get a real look at the inner workings of wikipedia. I do have one last question. How did you find the article? You probably didn't type Lupopotomus into the search bar. As an administrator, are you given a list of new pages to check, or do you all just check random ones. I read somewhere on your page that you were employed, and the article in question was made around noon, and erased around ten minutes after. What im really asking is weather or not their is a system for having admins check new articles, or ones that look suspicious. Thanks, and many apologies for sorta wasting your time, tikitrav — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikitrav (talk • contribs)

Icat59's block

I left Icat59 (talk · contribs) a message. If he requests unblocking and seems sincere and demonstrates he knows the rules and intends to follow them, please consider unblocking him. I don't know this guy but I do know sometimes people at his stage in life jump into a project not realizing it's not a playground, but once they do realize it's an active worksite and that their input is valued, they take it seriously. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. There's a conditional/probationary unblock path to follow, where the user selects an article to improve and works on it on there userpage to show they are redeemable. Blocks are only to protect the project, and he seemed to be making unconstructive edits at a high rate. If he shows he can constructively edit, the he neds an unblock. Cheers, and thanks for the note. Dlohcierekim 03:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kanonkas

Thank you Dlohcierekimfor voting in my successfully closed RfA! I'm glad that you trust me. Ping me if you need anything! Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  19:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

You should be using the discussion page before deleting pages, "hang on" tags were used but ignored. Please submit on the talk page next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.255.16 (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. The use of a hangon tag does not necessarily preclude deletion. If you disagree with the deletion, you put your reason on the article talk. If it meets WP:CSD, it meets WP:CSD. What article do you have in mind. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No reason was given on the discussion page for the deletion despite the hang on tags being there. Next time, please submit a reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.255.16 (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. You might want to brush up on the policies related to speedy deletion. No reason need be given on the talk page. If you have a particular page in mind, I will be happy to review the deletion. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

also, you can ign your posts by placing four ~'s at the end. Dlohcierekim 03:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Harry Nicolaides

I thought it certainly notable, it was a lead item. But the original text had not yet surfaced. It was pretty clear that it would pretty soon enough though. Suspect that you may see some edit wars on that one. The pro-monarchy faction does not like to hear criticism of their pet dictator. -- Gorgonzilla (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Dlohcierekim/2009,

Thank you for the compliment, let me know if you have any questions or if I can help you in anyway. I particularly love {{findsources3| Your article name here }}

Ikip (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello, Deepfriedokra. You have new messages at Inclusionist's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cookie!

Maddie! has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Maddie (formerly Ashbey) 12:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Steven Weigang, speedy declined, prodded, deprodded afd

Thanks for the note - I've voted on it. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 20:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in my (failed) RfA

Thanks. I'm now working on the Wikification WikiProject! It's fun. Can you do an article or two to help clear the backlog? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My article was deleted

The article in question was "Breepe".

This is bull, you owe me an explanation as to why you keep deleting this article. I keep asking what you want me to do to make this article acceptable but you people never respond to ANY of my questions. I followed all of the guidelines and rules as to saving my article or at least prolonging the deleting. I want to know what I have to do to get you to allow me to post this article on wikipedia without it being deleted. Words can't become real words if nobody gives them a chance, or in this case more than 2 hours! Russelsprouts91 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother with some of the instructions mate, the instructions on this website are way too hard to follow. The people that write them forget that the people reading are not as knowledgable as them. Wikipedia editing, though officially is all welcoming, is realistically quite elitist, sad but true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.160.100 (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you not read the notices above on your talk page? It was deleted because in no way meets inclusion criteria for an encyclopedia. It makes no sense. In fact, some would say it appears to be mocking the person who "invented" it. This would be a form of disparagement, which is wholly unacceptable on Wikipedia.

As has been said before, Wikipedia is not for something someone happens to invent. What makes meet Wikipedia:Notability, the notability guideline for Wikipedia articles?

What about it being invented by this particular person makes it notable? What WP:reliable sources document/discuss it's use? What is its impact on the language? On society? I searched Google for reliable sources for this. I found none that refer to it in this usage.

Please read the guidelines and policies linked in the welcome above. Think about the subject and this being an encyclopedia. Then contact me again on my talk page if you want it restored. I will gladly do so. And we can then discuss its merits/demerits at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. That decision is totally up to you. I await your reply. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

boxxy

All the sources are blogs, so it's not neutral and doesn't comply with WP:BLP.--Otterathome (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I responded to that at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Boxxy.--Otterathome (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Boxxy

I've upped your protection here to [move = sysop]. Editors have to be autoconfirmed to move pages anyway, so [move = autoconfirmed] is a pretty useless measure. That should probably be fixed, come to think of it. seresin ( ¡? )  08:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rootology

Hi, could you sign your support vote please? Thanks! Black Kite 16:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Award from: Article Rescue Squadron's Hall of Fame

Congratulations, you have been inducted into the Article Rescue Squadron's Hall of Fame

See the new little Life Preserver at the top of your page?

Coding:

Feel free to add more articles saved awards to your page, and to award other people this award too, for saving articles from deletion on Wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We all do what we can. Dlohcierekim 16:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I do not know if I can go back and fill in some previous edit summaries I left blank, but I will include them in the future.  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acererak II (talk • contribs) 16:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Four-horned water snail

Thank you for your message. I have reviewed my decision on the Four-horned water snail article tagging it with the nonsense tag. At first glance, it did appear to be nonsense with no reliable sources found at the end of the article. However, after a bit of extended research I have found that such an animal exists (http://www.fishpondinfo.com/snail2.htm). I do apologise for adding the wrong tag in this article and Thank you for noting this with me. Matt5091 (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Enigmism

Please help yourself - I'm going out now.

It may not be nonsense, but it's certainly garbled! The word itself doesn't exist and there's no documentation so "nonsense" was the nearest category I could find. pablo :_{:  ... hablo ...} 15:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record

You mentioned something about "attention seeking" on the RfA and also Malleus talk pages. All I want is the right to ask questions that I believe give us an idea of the candidate's personality. They are far more useful to me than "describe the difference between a ban and a block", etc. I will argue until I am blue in the face when people insist on making an issue out of it, but believe me, I'd be far happier if people would just relax and it never, ever came to this. Keepscases (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WT:RFA#Keep's ridiculous questions.

Keepscases made a good point in this thread: "You'll also notice that my talk page is filled with messages from established users who appreciate my questions". Among people who are still left on Wikipedia, you made one of the 4 supporting comments on Keepscases' talk page (although it was mild: "Just trying to point out how futile the current drama feels to me.") Is that still your opinion after reading the other messages on Keep's talk page and in the link above, and if so, would you like to argue this position in the current conversation? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. What are you asking? I've said before that I don't see anything wrong with "joke" questions and supports at RFA. I think sometimes a little comic relief is badly needed. I don't see what the fuss is all about. However, I've disengaged from this drama after posting, "With all due respect to the pro removers, what's disruptive is getting aggravated with harmless humor and making such an issue of it, complete with removal of the comments of others. And the questions do give us a peak inside the candidate's mind and personality, so they are germane." Will have a look. Don't promise I won't run the other way. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry I missed that you had already commented. Looking quickly, it looks like something over 90% of the people who have commented think something should be done about Keepscases questions (although there isn't any consensus on what should be done), and I think any time you've got those kind of numbers, we should at least talk. If we can assemble a handful of arguments from people who have strong feelings that Keepscases is fine and he should be able to ask any questions he wants to, then we have a good argument that we're not being slack at RFA and letting people be disruptive, we're listening respectfully to what some of the participants want and respecting minority opinions, even if we don't agree or understand. Or, if we get very high numbers for limiting Keepscases' questions, that would also demonstrate that we're actively trying to make RFA work better for voters and especially candidates. As long as we have a serious conversation and record the results, it seems like a win-win to me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If we get very high numbers for limiting anyone's question, based solely on who they are, then it'll be a very sad day. It's just a question after all. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Had much the same thought-- vetting questioners? banning questioners? you can't ask that? Dlohcierekim 01:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Lloros del Alma AfD

Hi! Just to let you know that I was referring to Darius' reasoning about it being in Spanish :) -Yupik (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Tangy tom

I think my article was deleted unfairly.

It was incomplete and I intended to build on it through out the day with pictures, sources etc and now I have completely lost it.

If possible could you forward my article back to me to edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossco6876 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: List of jungle and drum'n'bass artists merge proposal

Hello, Deepfriedokra. You have new messages at Viriditas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Saint Pancake

The redirect was neither nonsense nor an attack page, and has been restored. In case you're not familiar with it, the term is a disparaging name for Corrie granted by certain right wing pundits after her death. Jclemens (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in my post on this matter here. Thanks Mike R (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Since it's clearly a disparaging name then it is clearly a valid G10 - in fact it's almost a textbook G10 (quote from CSD#G10 - "it serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject"). The subject does not have to be alive - G10 clearly states that BLP is a separate, alternative reason to use that criteria. Therefore, I have deleted it again. Black Kite 21:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Blackkite. As it is, "a disparaging name for Corrie granted by certain right wing pundits after her death," then that would sound like a textbook case of what we should not have here. Even though she is dead, there is no need to allow her enemies to continue to attack her here. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

MPUH deleted WHY??

It appears that MPUH has been deleted due to some misunderstanding. MPUH stands for Muljibhai Patel Urological Hospital, Nadiad, a not for profit Trust Hospital, in a small town in Nadiad, Gujarat (India). A few months back somebody else had registered MPUH and started advertising on the google. We had taken up the matter with the web administrator and had that MPUH removed. I suppose, whoever has deleted the MPUH that I had put in, has done so due to misunderstanding. Please restore what was deleted and oblige. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joekittan (talk • contribs) 19:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Restored. removed spamacious content. Dlohcierekim 03:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

National museum (Maldives)

Would it be possible to move National museum (Maldives) over the redirect to National Museum (Maldives)? As it stands the title is irregular, so far as I can tell. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 01:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved.

Awesome - thanks so much. Should have checked in on this sooner, sorry. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 16:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Explanation

I may have placed deletion tags accidentally and not all my deletion tags are unnecessary.Go check.And my promise was not to any how place deletion tags.Human make mistakes,do you know that?Cheers,Jamiebijania (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 07:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Re

• Okay, I thought it was about a person as it is a common insult to call someone a dog. Thanks for deleting it any ways :D - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Hopefully will never know if it was or wasn't. Dlohcierekim 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 22:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

Read up on copyright. Anything published in the United Stated before 1922 is in the public domain. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I hope I wasn't too curt. Are you down in warm Florida? It is snowing here in New Jersey. And I was in Sweden just three weeks ago. I am sure you saw the pic on my user page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Explanation needed

Why did you write `concur` on my talk page?Boredm?Jamiebijania (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks,and sorry!

Flickr

If you want to find new topics for Wikipedia peek here where the Library of Congress adds photos of people and events and we have to find the context. The pics have been my source of topics for new biographies. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

superb. many thanks. Dlohcierekim 17:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Barnstarr

Hi, I noticed you 4im'd Barnstarr (talk · contribs). If you check their contribs, they have already impersonated an admin and committed a personal attack outside of the page you deleted. I think this is a sock of a blocked user, but I'm not sure who. I put them on AIV, but they are being slow to act. NJGW (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

After the return (see below), I put up CU request. Tiptoety asked for a letter classification, so I asked him if he thought that this is a good enough case for some fishing. He said he didn't think so.[3] What do you think? Press on or let it go? NJGW (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Like Tiptoety said, he's now indef blocked. I'm not much on trying to figure how who's the sock of whom. And eluding a CU is easier than you might think. If they have some sort of problem that leads to objectionable behavior, it is noticed by and by and then they are blocked just following the normal process of revert, warn, block. Certainly this was an obnoxious person for whom a block was inevitable. Some sort of attention seeker, I'd say. Also, for someone like this who is not quite up to the immediate blocking offered at AIV, one can always report at WP:AN/I. Cheers Dlohcierekim 13:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Gravity in meta-analysis

Your prod was removed, so I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravity in meta-analysis. Plastikspork (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: CSD Tag

Oh, crap. It was just vandalism from Dumbo43. My apologies! Glacier Wolf 20:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Festy Cock

Had a long day (still frozen). Should have looked in history. Wondered how it was tagged as orphaned when it was such drivel... Peridon (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Bögdator

Hi. You declined the speedy deletion of Bögdator. "Bögdator" means "gay computer" in Swedish, so it seems quite likely that it's just nonsense. Also, Google shows no correlation. Thanks. Tomasf (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Dibble

For some reason I was sure I had heard of it, so googled and got the missing article link as one of the first results. I've got no idea what was in the version you deleted. DuncanHill (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, a bit like the earliest version of Victorella pavida (another of my "saves"). DuncanHill (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Deletion of 63rd Depot

hey i just wanted to write to you that I believe the article 63rd Depot should stay up because it is soon going to be a part of pop culture. I have checked my sources, because I went to Frenchmans house for the interview (I'm sorry but in the interview, he asked his real name to be ananymous) I would just like for you to take the time and re think the article. I have explained why it is notable, there for i think it deserves to be an article. If you could possibly help me edit the article so it could be put on wikipedia, please tell me and I would love to accept your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooters2 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you got any reliable sources with verifiable information showing they now meet WP:BIO? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so notability must be established before an article is created. Also, you need to rethink how you want to write this. Declarative sentences, 3rd person, no flowery terms or fluff. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

PS. I find nothing on Google search that would support the content of this article. Dlohcierekim 02:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

New Messages

Hello, Deepfriedokra. You have new messages at Jamiebijania's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

added header re deleted

<3Hello fellow wikipedian, I have found it ever so offensive that you speedily deleted my article on a notion of unsalvageably incoherency<3 the oick, butt pirate, shrub, mangina and other great contributions I felt I was making to this<3 wonderful site. Please lets start over and please be my friend,<3

<3 Jenny Ps. do you use facebook<3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittykatty68Cliftonvale (talk • contribs) 06:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

reply Dlohcierekim 13:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for adminship... 3?

Hi Dlohcierekim, it's now been over half a year since my previous request for the mop, and reviewing that RfA reveals that you were one of my opposers last time round. I was wondering if you'd like to comment on my current status in the Wikipedia community, and if you believe I would be ready to run for adminship again in future? Kind regards. Please respond wherever you feel it is most appropriate. Kind regards. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that'd be very much appreciated when you have the time. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your questions and thorough review. I've answered the questions, and I fully intent to wait a while before running again anyway. This was just a preliminary check to get an idea on what my previous blockers thought before running. I think I'm waiting a good 2-3 months with solid AfD and CSD work before running. Thanks. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 09:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Very good. Look forward to next time. I see your cautious approach as willingness to learn and openess to feedback. Abusive admins have lacked these qualities. Dlohcierekim 15:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

63rd Depot

thanks, but what do you mean by flowery terms? i would like a definition. Sorry, but the only reliable source I can provide is the personal interview I had with them in September. I can't provide web sources, but i can only provide primary sources such as a face to face interview with brendawg and frenchman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooters2 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

reply Dlohcierekim 13:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA Q's

Hello, Deepfriedokra. You have new messages at Wadester16's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sig

Heya Dlohcierekim, the recent message you left at User talk:Sarahng97 telling them that their page had been deleted failed to sign, if you look there you can see that the template you left there finished with just "~~~~" instead of your signature, thanks Spitfire^Tally-ho! 22:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

heh, good luck sorting that out, cheers Spitfire^Tally-ho! 22:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Quote at WP:RFA/Wadester16

Where did that "wise man" quote come from? I like it very much. --barneca (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will do some hunting. --barneca (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

CSD tagging!

I think that one article was nonsense because their wasnt enough info plus I think you have had mistakes too!JDOG555 (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wambeen

You are quite correct, I was over-zealous. In my defence, that source was not there when tagged it for speedy deletion.

Thanks, --Carbon Rodney 20:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

article

hello, got your msg. I've tried to make this as neutral as possible. If it's not meeting requirements please let me know how to delete the page.

Thanks Openschoolbc (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting 5 articles which were deleted

I notice that you are listed on: Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles.

I am requesting 5 deleted articles to be userfied, pretty, pretty please :):

• Hannah Kane: Me and the Boys delete. MBisanz talk 13:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Supa Nova Productions delete. MBisanz talk 13:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Wasteland (film) delete. MBisanz talk 13:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Peter Catanzariti delete. MBisanz talk 13:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• List of businesses involved in World War II delete. MBisanz talk 13:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

From: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 15

If I could please also get the creator's name and date it was created?

You can move all 5 pages to a userspace, lets say User:Ikip/Hannah Kane: Me and the Boys, with the history intact (I am interested in who created the article, and when).

I really appreciate it. You are probably wondering why I ask. Well, I have spent my weekend on a graph found here: User:Ikip/AfD on average day. I am interested in what type of user gets their page deleted, etc....November 15 is just a day pulled out of a hat by another user.

Thanks :) Ikip (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better to contact the deleting admin. I generally only deal with articles I've deleted, and only if the request is made by the creator. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, you may want to remove yourself from that category. Have a great week. Ikip (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nick Martinelli

I was just correcting the tags, I didn't really take a look at the article. You may want to issue another warning to JDOG555 about his/her overzealous use of the "Patent Nonsense" tag. Peace. C1k3 (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

talk page template

Hi, I noticed you were using User:Dlohcierekim/uncy-deleted on new users talk pages. I must strongly suggested you remove the reference to Wikipedia:Complete bollocks as it is an essay and also a profanity. The link to Uncyclopedia should also be removed, reasons why can be found here.--Otterathome (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't follow. Dlohcierekim 00:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

My first acquaintance with Wikipedia:Complete bollocks was when I saw it used as a deletion rationale at WP:AFD. As I understand it, and in this usage, Bollocks is a Britishism akin to what was called bullshit when I was in high school-- conflated, extemporaneous nonsense designed to make the speaker/writer seem more knowledgeable or even authoritative on a subject of which their knowledge was limited or non existent.

Uncyclopedia is actually a humorous Wikipedia parody site whose articles are often humorous conflated nonsense. If a user appears to have mistaken Wikipedia for Uncyclopedia by creating something appropriate there but inappropriate for here, I find it best to direct them to a place where their creation will be welcomed and even appreciated as a positive contribution. I use User:Dlohcierekim/uncy-deleted to give them a deserved explanation as to why I deleted their article to so direct them to that appropriate place.

I see no benefit in doing what you suggest, and doing so would remove from use a tool I sometimes find useful. Your reasons make no sense to me. You must have dug awfully hard to find where I had used it. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia:Complete bollocks maybe appropriate in some places, but using it on new users talk pages might be violating WP:BITE. New users create test/nonsense articles, rejecting them to another website isn't going to help them become a helpful editor.--Otterathome (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I always give them a welcometemplate. So you do agree that doing as you originally suggested is not necessarily beneficial, as there are times when using the template might be appropriate? And I think I have the judgment to use this template in a way so as to not bite. If you knew me better, you would not insult me this way-- calling me bitey. I realize that you are on some sort of campaign against Uncyclopeida, but I see no reason why someone cannot contribute to both. And some discussions I have had with users who contribute tripe have led me to believe that nonsense suitable for Uncyclopedia is what they wanted to contribute. It is not bitey to tell someone why their article was deleted and to point them the way to constructive editing. Contrarily, it is bitey to delete without explanation. And like I say, I generally lay on a welcome to anyone that has not had one except when they are putting up attack pages. Besides the which, these are not good faith efforts by someone who does not know how to write or cite or to meet inclusion criteria. The articles I use this template for are conflated nonsense. Stuff the creator knows to be untrue and deliberately tries to pass off as a legitimate article. In other words, stuff that could be treated as vandalism. Thanks for your input, though. Dlohcierekim 15:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact still stands, you are directing users to an outside site that is unrelated to Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation who could have otherwise learnt to become useful contributors. What you are doing could be interpreted as spamming but that would probably wouldn't be assuming good faith in this case. You may see yourself as helping these kinds of editors go where they may be better suited, but it's just an exit door for potential future contributors.--Otterathome (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree, then. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:User:Cyclonenim

Thanks for the review, Dloh. I really appreciate it. Malinaccier (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Deepfriedokra. You have new messages at Wuhwuzdat's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wadester16

Indeed true. I suppose I'm just a bit too attached to the NBD theory. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Public perception of George W. Bush

Gave a reason in the edit summary (look back a few days).--Otterathome (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Anything to do improve the article? No. Is it in violation of WP:BLP? - likely. So removed.--Otterathome (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. And you made no mention of that in your edit summary. Cheers. Dlohcierekim 15:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And if it's not too much trouble, I would appreciate a new header for a new thread. Thanks. Dlohcierekim 15:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

19:42, 8 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Public perception of George W. Bush ‎ (rm WP:BLP nonsense) - linking to WP:BLP seemed like a mention to me.--Otterathome (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I see. That was many reverts ago. You then characterized another editor's reverts as "vandalism" and as "disruption," which good be perceived as a non assumption of good faith. You also reverted CalendarWatcher with the sumary "read BLP," so it was hard to get the drift. I think your BLP concern may be a bit of a stretch, and would like to invite everyone concerned to hash it out at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disagreement over removal of other's comments at Talk:Public perception of George W. Bush. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 15:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I did mention above "Gave a reason in the edit summary (look back a few days)". If somehow you think the content is about improving the article, I'd sure like to know!--Otterathome (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Left-wing fascism in India

Dear Dlocierekim,

Please refer to the article "Left-wing fascism in India" authored by me. What I have put there is all well referenced and from genuine sources like "Amnesty Internationl". Please let me know what changes can be done to retain it. What can be done to change its image as "soapboxy" as you see it? I am new to wiki and your guidance is well appreciated. Michonuri (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. Basically, it needs more neutral wording and should have reliable sources that provide verifiable information. No conclusions can be drawn that are not stated in the sourcing, no synthesis of information can occur or else it becomes original research. This appeared to be an assembly of disconnected facts into a single article. Hope that helps. Dlohcierekim 15:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankspam

Dear Dlohcierekim, belated post holiday thanks for your support in my RFA which was successful.

Chequers Tree

Chequers Tree fruit - eat when well bletted

Thanks to everyone who participated in either my successful RfA, or the trial run, whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks to I'm Spartacus! and Cyclonenim for nominating me, and for those of you who treated this as a !vote not a vote and reviewed your position as the discussions developed. I am deeply humbled by the trust that the community has put in me. I'd also like to thank my tallybots, the closing crats, the vandalfighters who wiped vandalism from my RFA, the users who initially welcomed me and gave me rollback, everyone whose worked with me here, those who created the various guides and tools for aspirant admins, the Lolcat who nommed me in my first RFA and everyone else who has helped make Wikipedia such a wonderful site. ϢereSpielChequers The lycanthropic loquacious fruit tree.

To copy this elsewhere type {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Ta muchly for RFA}}

I gather its sounds best when read outloud in the style of Ms Winslet at the Oscars WereSpielChequers 00:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Thanks for the note. I'm not too familiar with editing, but when I do see something I know needs to be changed - I try my best. HTML (I think that's what they call it?) is beyond me.  :) --Missi (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You're obviously busy...

I realize you are busy, but I'm considering re-applying for adminship. You were one person who recanted on support, but I wasn't too clear on your rationale. If you would be so kind as to elaborate on User:BQZip01/RfA4. If there's anything I can do to assuage your concerns, please let me know. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent feedback. Thanks! — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

admins

Can you make me an admin? Pleeez? The Ant Who Eats (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC).

Whoops!

Yeah, my bad. I accidentally did it in Huggle. I'll be more careful. --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 21:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely bane. :) --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 22:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: User talk:Cyclonebizkit

Hey Dloh, I noticed his lack of experience but somehow I wasn't particularly worried about it, given the amount of work he puts into article building and communication. I feel he could learn the rest later, taking things slowly. —Cyclonenim | Chat  08:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there are certainly significant issues to overcome by running this way, but I don't feel it's impossible to become a good administrator like this. I've made my cautious support which you're welcome to read, but I don't think it'll make a blind bit of difference anyway because it's almost certainly going to fail. —Cyclonenim | Chat  17:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars

Hello You previously voted on a deletion debation for this article some time ago. The result of that AFD was no consensus, and the article had now been re-nominated for deletion. Just drawing your attention to this fact, should you consider to join in the debate again. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 16:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahmed Abu Alasrar attacks

As I stated in the edit summary, the article claimed the athlete in hiding per blp ' That was in the final paragraph of the article. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied here. that was vandalism. Now we've re-added the slur in our talk pages. Dlohcierekim 01:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The vandal is also at work here: Omar_Hassan. That is up for CSD, too, as the article is a hoax (there is no such player on Manchester United). And thank you for your good work! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Valley Crew Massive

Hi there, I noticed that you deleted this under A7. And of course, there is no credible claim of significance, so A7 fits. But given the nature of some of the information, I saw this as more of an attack page or negative unsourced BLP. What do you think? decltype (talk) 02:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Last minute RfA Qs answered

FYI I have answered your RfA questions, although I have not had time to refer to policies and guidelines. Mark Hurd (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

And reply

Cheers, JNW (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Battle Of Bannockburn (single)

I edited right after you and turned it into a redirect; all the material on that page was also on the other page. S'ok? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You beat me to it. Dlohcierekim 21:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Janet Hudson Schroeder

JFYI - original poster of Janet Hudson Schroeder removed your prod tag without comment or establishing notability. I agree NN with only around 200ghits most of which are from sites apparently controlled by her. No evidence of awards.     JCutter^{{ talk to me}}     00:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully she's out getting reliable sources. I left a note linking to notability and sourcing. Hopefully I did not frighten her off. I'll revisit the page to see how sourcing is going, and AFD if no improvement. Dlohcierekim 00:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

comment form editor who's article was deleted

fool —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesmitty33 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: deletion of Peter Martin (athlete)

Thankyou for the note on your deletion of this article. Having not checked it for a while I can not say what sort of state it was in however I do know that he has won multiple medals at three paralympics, this I believe meets notability and is verifiable with a check on the ipc.org website (which I don't have to hand at the moment, damn work computers). Would it be possible to drop a copy of the article on User:waacstats/test1 in my user space so I can have a look at it. From memory unless the page had been vandalised it should not have been patent nonsense. Waacstats (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done What confused me was the mismatch between article name and the name of the subject in the article. And I apologize for not realizing I was templating a regular. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, even regulars make stupid mistakes. I often write articles off line and then post a group of them together, looks like i c&p'd the wrong article to that title. I will have to check I didn't make any other similar mistakes. Thankyou for pointing this out. Waacstats (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Dlohcierekim 13:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Company names

Hi again. I saw you posting notices to User:Advanced1Nutrition even though they were unresponsive... what are your thoughts on company names (especially ones that spam like that one) then (in relation to WP:U as well)? Personally I'd hesitate to block if they didn't spam but that one sure was blatant. -- Mentifisto 14:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't think of it from that angle till after you'd blocked and messaged them. Which is just as well. I was going to watch and wait-- their intent seemed pretty clear with a copy/paste advertisement for the article text, so I figured they would give up after seeing their "contribution" deleted so quickly. I'd have probably wound up blocking them anyway, whether with a hard or soft block depending on how they responded. If they insisted on abusing Wikipedia for nefarious gain, then I'd have hard blocked 'em. If they made constructive edits, I'd have gone for the soft block with an explanation and and opportunity to to change to an appropriate user name. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I don't think they had much time to respond. 3 minutes from welcome, to article review with warnings, to block-- went pretty fast. Dlohcierekim 15:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That's why it was a spam hard block though... because username policy forbids company names and, I suppose, especially those that spam... since we've seen their intentions for registering on WP technically (as WP:U says as well, although it could be contradictory in other parts) they should be blocked for spamming and having a corresponding company username. -- Mentifisto 15:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks Mike. <rant>The nominee, like all of us, is here to create a great encyclopedia. There are a select few that possess the mix of attributes that make them fit to mop up the joint and take the trash out to the curb. This candidate is not one of them. An oppose does not make him any less valuable, or diminish his many hundreds of hours of hard work. My personal opinion is that the RfA process is not a forum to insult a persons dignity, or broadcast their faults. Unfortunately, the current process has evolved to a mixture of American Idol and a beauty contest, where insults are launched at characteristics that may not even relate to capability.</rant> --Preceding unsigned comment 15:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

deletion of David Morley Musician

Thanks for your mail concerning deleting the article about David Morley The annoying thing is that when I (for it is me!) am mention on record label pages, it gets directed to another David Morley (tha barman murdered in London) and I would have just liked it to get linked to the correct David Morley. I can't see how this can be negative for wiki? Surely not having the right people linked to, is not good for anyone? Thanks! Buchla300 (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply. Dlohcierekim 13:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

hi there

can you please guide me how to edit the content i've been trying to publish under Vagina Worthy?

I'm NOT trying to advertise my site, i'm trying to get the meaning of the term Vagina Worthy out there.

i've attaced the body below,

Thanks <<blanked deleted content that is promotional in nature>>

Deleted article

Thanks for your response. There is a large Discography about me online at discogs.com etc but I think my problem is formatting wiki is a tricky thing for which I have no time to learn! so, I'll hope someone else mentions me in the right places! Thanks all the same David Buchla300 (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yalincak

I was in the process of making some less drastic deletions, but I leave you to it, although I think most of what you deleted was OK. I removed one additional word. DGG (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Saw that. messages crossed. Dlohcierekim 22:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think he is in fact a notable criminal, though there are worse. The sdetail4ed tuff about his lawyer, of course, goes elsewhere if at all. I imagine that's the complaint.DGG (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I

I'd say the place to take it is BLPN. If the question becomes to what extent we are bound by a court's order to a third party, that has to go to the foundation, but I think we could do it without involving that. At least the basic refs can go back. DGG (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Did that. He's bound by whatever court order, he should lay off. Like you say. I can see restoring to before he got in the act with your lead, but not my preference. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no court order against reporting documents filed on PACER....if you have questions about that then check with an attorney but wiki is suppose to be a neutral source and is not subject to non-existing gag orders (none exist because the settlement documents and sums are available on PACER. -Mary

The site was fine the way it was but without an update its outdated... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marymccully (talk • contribs) 19:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hakan Yalincak

<<Removed content that need not be on my talk page--BLP. >> Mary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marymccully (talk • contribs) 19:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)