Revision as of 14:42, 26 October 2007

IMPORTANT NOTE: ADD YOUR MESSAGES AT THE BOTTOM, NOT THE TOP. OTHERWISE I MIGHT NOT SEE THEM.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

Hello Dragonfly. UUUUUU r the reason Misplaced Pages has so many mistakes. U deleted my page and one of my edits. The edit was RIGHT! So go on with your business and delete some more good things and while your at it u might win the DELETERS STAR!

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)
• Archive 5 (August 17 2006 to October 17 2006)
• Archive 6 (October 17 2006 to February 20 2007
• Archive 7 (February 20 2007 to September 18 2007

=

Cleaner fish

Fair enough, perhaps not the best word! Will change. Cheers, Neale Monks 17:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Jake ihn deletion

I noticed you deleted the article on Jake ihn which was at AfD. While I agree completely with the result, I wonder whether it wouldn't have been more proper to let AfD run its full five-day course instead of axing it after less than twelve hours - to my knowledge, even "hoax" is not a reason for speedy deletion. Yours, Huon 10:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Speedily Re-Created

Not 3 minutes after you speedily deleted this article, the author recreated it. Perhaps a block or a salting of the article if the persistence keeps up? Bmg916 13:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted page

The page deleted 19:36, 20 September 2007 by DragonflySixtyseven "Porcham Terrier" ‎ (apparent hoax) is appropriate for inclusion in Misplaced Pages and its content is based on reliable sources because it reffers to actual events. If there is any doubts about the reliability of the sources the page should not be deleted without warning, but should be nominated for consideration in a deletion debate, so that editors can discuss whether it should be deleted. So, please put the page back up untill there is a consensus to do so. Thanks. Koven.rm 20:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

DragonflySixtyseven has not answered me

I sent you an email message on 2 April 2007, which you have not answered.

In my opinion, people who are good and honest do answer email messages from other human beings. --Law Lord 13:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Page Deleted Without Due Process

The page Sugar Addicts Anonymous was immediately deleted by User:DragonflySixtyseven without giving the author proper time to address the proposed reason for deletion, "notability not asserted". Please either restore the article with a 'notability' tag, as this page is the name of a group that exists and may be found independently through Facebook (which was also credited in the original article). There is plenty of independent information about sugar addiction, and I do not see any reason why the article of our Sugar Addiction Anonymous group should be considered any less important. Respectfully, ---Juno- 16:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

Did you know? was updated. On 24 September, 2007, a fact from the article Karl Emil Nygard , which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3  00:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind

I believe I was just voicing my unhappiness on the fact that you had been me indefinately. Oh well, I am back, so I guess the problem is solved. Cheers. --Law Lord 14:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad virus

Thanks that you nuke out the bad Hasselhoff Virus ;). --DaB. 16:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hamroll3 block

What was the reasoning behind your block of Hamroll3 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? "Lies", and no context, isn't really good enough of an explanation...

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 00:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. I went back and reviewed deleted edits, etc.

We had to look into this because someone else at the apparently shared corporate proxy IP he used asked for the autoblock to be lifted, and it wasn't evident at all what the parent block had been about.

It's not really fair to anyone else who comes along afterwards, unblock-en-l, or if they put an unblock template, or whatever, if we have to go digging this deep to figure out what the deal was. Please try and put more useful info in block messages and/or the user talk page after a block... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 02:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Marquetect

The phrase has been bandied around for years in reference to emerging markets specifically regards the more recent in the grand historical scheme of things, on line frontiers

It is undoubtedly neology as by wikis own definition. Neologisms are especially useful in identifying inventions, new phenomena, or old ideas which have taken on a new cultural context. The term "e-mail", as used today, is an example of a neologism.

How would you suggest it is acceptably registered and acknowledged as part of common parlance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SavagePoet (talk • contribs) 05:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 29 September, 2007, a fact from the article Who Stole the Cookie from the Cookie Jar?, which you recently wrote, uh nominated, uh, helped inspire (in the super secret cabal channel), was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, blah blah blah.

--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Zomgaaron

I'm curious how you got to the rationale of "not a useful contributor". Creating a crummy article on a neologism isn't a reason to get indef blocked. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 03:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the content of the page the user created, I think DS's judgment was completely sound -- this wasn't a neologism, it was a clear hoax with a malicious nature, and it's clear that this user was only here to disrupt the project. --krimpet⟲ 03:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec with Krimpet) Nah, didn't get to read it (being a non-admin and all), but I've been emailed a copy. I'm not sure it warrants an indef block now, but I suppose that's the inevitable result. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 03:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply about sources

I should have worded it a bit better. It was meant to be an "even they don't have it" sort of statement (if that makes sense). Wasn't trying to use it as a reliable source. Thanks for the tip though. A 06:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Your message regarding process

(duplicating from my talk page) Hi. :) Thanks for your note. I'm sure I have a lot to learn about the process, and I welcome input.

I use the summaries with code numbers because in working at Help Desk I've seen many users come to ask about why their articles were deleted. I like to make that process as transparent as possible. :) It's no particular onus to type them out, since they're all in my browser memory anyway.

I do delete articles which I feel are blatant and obvious vandalism. (A quick glance at my deletion log shows two together--Wtfombbq and Lncoln yesterday, for instance.) Probably my definition of that is relatively conservative. Looking over your deletion log, the only articles I see in the top 500 that I remember removing the CSD from were "skunting"—which probably was garbage, but was already in AfD and which does have enough google hits that I felt it deserved the "wider forum" prescribed by WP:CSD (under Hoaxes)—and"Rummy (spoken game)", about which I felt similarly, given my interpretation of policy. The only other two speedies that I seem to have recently removed that were subsequently speedied anyway, looking at my deleted edits, are Brigada 921, an article in a foreign language tagged as no context which was speedied for content after I requested translation, and OptiVISOR. I disagreed with speedy spam assessment and put it up for PROD as non-notable and undersourced. Another admin apparently thought the spam label appropriate.

Anyway, if you see that I have removed the speedy tag from an article and believe I'm in error, please do let me know. I'm not interested in pushing articles through procedure for procedure's sake, though I am very concerned with conforming to policies. If I'm misinterpreting something, I'd be very grateful to have that pointed out. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Long time no hear. How've you been? --PaxEquilibrium 20:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to find you on chat Wikipedian channels - but no where? --PaxEquilibrium 22:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I haven't got yet a "permanent" one, I'm using mIRC for the first time after more than a year. I've been looking under "D" and couldn't find anything. The #wikipedia channel? Freenode server? Right? --PaxEquilibrium 20:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm? --PaxEquilibrium 20:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I was going to ask you to proofread Serbian presidential election, 2007, if you could. --PaxEquilibrium 20:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: For future reference

Hey,

Thanks for leaving that comment. I have been trying to remember to leave edit comments, especially if I do something big like the recent change in the History of Georga (U.S.) article, but it's a haphazard thing. Gonna have to make sure it becomes a habit. I'll work harder to make sure to make sure I don't forget to do it in the future. Reb 02:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your block of Wikitarded

Heyo. A user has started a thread on WP:ANI about your recent block of Wikitarded (talk · contribs). I thought you might be interested in contributing to the discussion there. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 22:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Will you please unblock this user, at least so that they can create a new account right away if they are so inclined? You blocked them with account creation disabled. ➪HiDrNick! 23:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

DeathNomad

Just happened to notice a user creating article redirects to his userpage... -WarthogDemon 03:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hoax

There are no historical accounts of a person with such name. Moreover, the name itself is not traditional to any of the cultures associated with the region. Judging from its spelling, it looks like a mock-Azeri made-up name. Parishan 04:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Valtio deletion

I noted you have recently deleted the above page, on the basis that it is an "apparent hoax". This statement was actually supported in the first sentence, which stated that it is an "imaginary micronation". I cannot myself immediately verify whether the claims in the article that it is regularly reported on in Helsingen Sanomat and Radio Finland are accurate. However, the referenced statement that the Finnish Defense Forces newspaper sent soldiers to take back the territory claimed seems to me to be at least one basis for saying that the subject is notable enough to qualify as an article. If you would, I would ask you to restore the article. The project whose banner was on the page, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Micronations, can probably (I hope) produce other references to verify the notability of the subject. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 13:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• An editor has asked for a deletion review of Valtio. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. John Carter 16:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Good point about the Corante and Nathaniel Butter articles. I'll do more research; perhaps some of the information in the Butter article is dated. Both Butter and Thomas Archer were involved in the syndicate that produced the English newspapers of the early 1620s; the contradictions between the articles should be resolvable. Ugajin 23:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Jane Farrow

I'm honored to be your nemesis!!! :) :)

The only reason I removed the Category:LGBT people from Jane Farrow is because it wasn't sourced in the article. If she's out, then the only thing needed is:

Farrow is openly lesbian.

• "Gay Talk", And Sometimes Y, CBC Radio, 2007-09-29, retrieved 2007-10-10 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help).

(BTW: She should really be in Category:LGBT people from Canada and Category:Lesbian writers :)

I'll add that info. Thanks for the ref! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Move of University presidents

My bad. I tried to do the move feature but since the other page had the redirect already it wouldn't let me. In the future is it better to blank the page that redirects and then do the move feature? —Noetic Sage 05:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Harold Brighouse

Excuse me but can we have Harold Brighouse* back? I never saw the original page but if it was substandard, I am happy to edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haerenia (talk • contribs) 11:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Insectathopter

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/08/AR2007100801434.html

is not a hoax...

research rules, pwnage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.96.155 (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right. sorry for being rude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syngori (talk • contribs) 13:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

SieBot

It made that set of mistakes twice - first, it made the mistake. Then, Dirac corrected the mistake. Then, the bot restored its mistake. This is ridiculous; I have blocked the bot on en.wiki until it is fixed. DS 65.92.160.99

Wow. You sure are trigger happy. Bots are dumb things - I think you should read up on how interwiki bots work instead of resorting to bullying. If not all wikis are corrected, it will just put things back. Because you blocked the bot now, there is no way for me to easily correct it and the bot can not do any more edits. You are blocking a bot because 0,01% of its edits are incorrect. That's rediculous in my opinion.

Anyway, I fixed a few issues, that appear to have originated from bg.wikipedia. Please unblock SieBot. Siebrand 08:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Beta carbon nitride

Why was my work on Beta carbon nitride deleted, it was not a experiment, i actually think it is made up and a hoax, and it should be removed--Iceglass 14:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Hi, thanks, but actually credit belongs to Darwinek (talk · contribs) who noticed me at my talk page. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 00:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a problem, see this . ≈Tulkolahten≈ 00:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You welcome. I like to keep things consistent on Misplaced Pages and hoax articles just poison our community and work. Thanks for quick response. - Darwinek 08:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

DRV Notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Valtio. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee t/c 19:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It could have been worse

I wanted to thank you for not banning my IP address outright. It is appreciated. I'm not trying to kiss @$$, either, I really am thankful that this IP did not get fully banned. So, thanks for the mercy.

I have two questions for you: 1)Is it unacceptable for me to put the Hevstäf article as a subpage on my userpage? It would not be part of Misplaced Pages proper, and I don't have any intention of putting it back in. 2) Are you a member of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProjects Comics? On the top of this talk page I noticed that you've taken interest in comics-based articles. ~Zebraic 22:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion of my page was a personal affront and will be accounted for accordingly... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.101.16 (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I found this while on RC patrol and it looked oddly familar. I thought it'd bring it to your attention. Maybe I've made a mistake and it's you with a differnt username or it's a sockpuppet of a former vandal who has encountered you before. AngelOfSadness talk 13:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, the user has been blocked for vandalism and their userpage has been deleted for trying to impersonate yourself. Happy Editing :D AngelOfSadness talk 13:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of InfoPrint Solutions Company

Quick question. You deleted a listing for InfoPrint Solutions Company labeling it as advertising spam. Please note that this company is referenced in other entries including the entry for Ricoh. While it was not extensive, the listing only contained organizational information regarding the origin of the company and a cursory overview of what it provides. It was devoid of marketing jargon and claims of any type. It was completely factual and did not promote a product or service. If this type of entry is not allowed, do you plan to delete the Hewlett-Packard, Canon (Company) or any and all company entries as well. If your decision was based on the quantity of information provided, you should be more specific rather than tag something as spam for quick deletion. I'm also unaware of any specific length requirements for Misplaced Pages entries considering they are organic in nature and expected to evolve in quantity and quality of content. I look forward to any comments or insights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skellig (talk • contribs) 22:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was tagged for deletion by a different user, not by Dragonfly. There are a huge number of spam articles created every week, so it is not unusual for them to be promptly tagged and deleted; I don't think Dragonfly did anything objectively wrong. I undeleted the article so you have more time to improve it. Try to find some third-party sources that discuss the company. If there are no such sources, then Misplaced Pages probably shouldn't have an article on the company. The article isn't tagged for deletion at the moment, but if no sources are provided it probably will eventually be tagged again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Gordon McVie

Could you revert the above deletion? I'm in the process of de-copyvioing it. I'm assuming good faith in that it's a member of the organisation editing it, it seems like it is! In any case, give me a few minutes to re-write it perhaps? Thanks! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 15:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

RE Gordon McVie, that assumption is correct, please revert the deletion, the copyright has been released under the GFDL. We were just getting that article off the ground, Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbirch24 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Still

I apologize for having offended you. <~Zebraic/talkedits> 04:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

You should discuss the unblock of Sadi Carnot with Sarah. He himself hasn't even asked to be unblocked. Why the rush to do this without discussing it first? - Jehochman 22:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Ah, yes. Thanks! I can't wait to see what the next one will be... Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration

You have been named in a request for arbitration titled Sadi Carnot. Please visit Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration and consider making a statement per the instructions there. Thank you. - Jehochman 00:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete reshitting?

Why did you deleted the article on reshitting? It was valid and factual. Shok is the inventor of reshitting. I'm the owner of reshitting.com it's a REAL fetish. Maybe Shok's article could use some editing, but there was no need to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.26.227 (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Joey Shabadoo

Nobody requested a speedy, nor did you claim one, so it is totally inappropriate to remove it till 5 days of discussion. First I get a submarine nom, with no notice, then it is removed immediately? Please revert this, it is totally contradictory to Wiki rules, and this way will save us both the trouble of an appeal.JJJ999 00:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• It would be polite to reply thanks.JJJ999 03:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JJJ999 here - closing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joey Shabadoo after under five hours probably wasn't a good idea. It wouldn't have hurt for it to stay the five days and now it's going to get relisted at DRV and run the course anyhow. Perhaps you might at least do JJJ999 the courtesy of replying to his message. Stifle (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ricky Di Ossi

This page is back, saw you SD'd it before, may want to revist it. Thanks, — xaosflux 01:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Brown Bamford

This is a true story I wittnessed. This is an unfair treatment of my rights. Put my story back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinpatriot1 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your help on Cyclura rileyi cristata...if you wouldn't mind checking some of my other articles on cycluras I'd appreciate it...I type in raw wiki without spellcheck and sometimes things get away from me. Thanks again! --Mike Searson 03:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

DRV Notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Joey Shabadoo. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--- Jreferee t/c 15:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You are making a mistake by blocking Swanzsteve

DS, I agree wholeheartedly with Swanzsteve. Denveron did the exact same to me. He deleted a web link which I inserted giving access to the Dingle debate with McCrea as recorded in Nature. That link also contained at the top a reference to Essen. Essen's views are recorded in Nature and Denveron has got absolutely no right to delete them on the grounds of them being crackpottery. Clearly Denveron is trying to impose his anti-Dingle POV on this article whereas Swanzsteve seems to be battling in vain to keep it neutral. Arthur Spool 08:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

DS, fwiw, see my comment on Ryulong's talk page. Cheers, DVdm 09:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Dingle

If I had any idea where to find Barnstars, I'd give you one for the way you dealt with that. Well done. I absolutely support the idea of a good long block for anyone on either side who starts revert warring there again. It's gone way past silly.--Isotope23 12:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23, your own record of fairness is appalling. You are a notorious one sided blocker. Catsiam 14:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

1. something