< User talk:Deepfriedokra

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deepfriedokra (talk | contribs) at 21:54, 9 February 2008 (→RFA/MBisanz: cc reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:54, 9 February 2008 by Deepfriedokra (talk | contribs) (→RFA/MBisanz: cc reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Contacting me

If you wish to contact me, the quickest and easiest way is to CLICK HERE.

If you have a question about a deleted article, please leave a message by CLICKING HERE. You can also appeal a deletion by clicking this link to Deletion Review and following the directions found there.

This user welcomes RFA thank spam.

Messages

Ultraexactzz is now an Administrator

My RfA was successful, and closed with 44 Supports, 6 Opposes, and 1 Neutral. For your support, you have my thanks - I fully intend to live up to the lofty yet not-a-big-deal responsibility you have granted me. For those who opposed my candidacy, I value your input and advice, and hope that I may prove worthy of your trust. Special thanks to both Rudget and bibliomaniac 1 5 for their expert coaching and guidance. I look forward to serving the project, my fellow editors, the pursuit of higher knowledge, et cetera, et cetera. Again, you have my thanks. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 01:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Question About Issuing Warnings

Many Thanks

Many thanks for canceling the deletion of my article and for sending me advise on how to edit Misplaced Pages! Chimchar monferno (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks from Happy-melon

I just wanted to say thanks for your support for my RfA, which closed (74/2/0) this morning. Your comment and support was very much appreciated. Happy‑melon 09:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Question on Warnings

Hello! Sorry to bother, but I wanted to get your opinion on Warnings.

Specifically, would it make sense for me to issue a Level 1 Warning relating to inappropriate humor against an editor who made a small but sarcastic crack designed to belittle a comment I made in a WQA resolution conversation – a conversation where that editor was supposed to be offering unbiased moderation.

The mediation thread is here: .

I initiated the complaint against someone that I believed was a potential troll.  This person acknowledged having no knowledge of the subject prior to his posting, to which I commented that I only edit articles where I have a knowledge of the article’s subject.

The mediating editor then went to the page in question, fixed a tiny typo, but added a sarcastic comment that was designed (I believe) to ridicule my comment about subject knowledge. It is the top edit on this page: .

Unless I am mistaken, this is inappropriate humor designed solely to belittle my opinion -- especially when this editor is supposed to be unbiased and acting in good faith. What I wanted to know is (1) am I justified in issuing a Level 1 warning based on this, and (2) can I issue the warning directly or does a third party who is not involved in this dispute have to come in and do that?

I need to point out this editor issued a Level 1 warning against me at the conclusion of the mediation, but only issued a very soft message of caution against the person I saw as a perceived troll. I disputed the action, claiming the editor was not acting in good faith and showed very clear bias. The editor later acknowledged his decision was incorrect on his User page, but immediately removed that text from display when I called it to his attention.

In the scheme of things, it is incredibly small pickings. Still, I was interested in getting feedback on how to proceed.

Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't do well with this sort of thing. I would advice posting this to WP:AN/I. The folks there are much better at this sort of thing than I will ever be. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 15:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback. But in your opinion, should I just let this issue die or does it make sense to voice my unhappiness over this matter on that board? Be honest, I am open to your advice. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome Edit

Mike, Thanks for the welcome, and especially the links. As you must know, this site is very convoluted, and takes alot of research in order to navigate. Hopefully some day the developers will put some code together so that it is more intuitive. I am researching how signatures are done, without luck. There must be a simple was to setup the long text strings that many such as you use, any hints?TomPhan (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Thank you, I will try. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomPhan (talk • contribs) 23:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Cognitive reserve

You posted a request (more than a year ago) for a photo on the cognitive reserve page. This is pretty much an abstract concept. Did you have a particular idea for a photo? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:89.216.188.69

Seeing as you've dismissed my report, saying that the user has been inactive for three hours, well he's back now and I can't follow him around, reverting his edits. The user has a long history of vandalizing footballers' infoboxes. Please block him now, although I believe you should have done that straight away. I've also checked his activity on the Serbian wikipedia and it doesn't seem to be any better. Cheers. BanRay 19:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The user is an established vandal, and what is worst, he seems to hit wikipedia where it hurts, since such vandalism is usually overlooked. In fact I think I'm the only one who cleans up his mess. You decided to remove my report, fair enough, but what we have here now is a vandal who has been around for some four months doing the same sort of vandalism day after day and yet he gets away with it because no one can nab him right there. He'll be back tomorrow and I'll revert him, no problem really, takes a few minutes with twinkle, and then the day after tomorrow, maybe that's the way it should be, I don't know. Sure you can't check AIV 24/7, but neither can I follow the guy around. The block log comes in handy in such cases. I'd be glad to report him while he's still active, but that's quite unlikely, as I've already said, I've got some other stuff to do apart from wikipedia, and, unfortunately or maybe fortunately, I can't sit here all day waiting for him to edit/vandalize a page. Cheers. BanRay 22:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, the last edit wasn't legitimate either, the stats are all incorrect, thanks for the useful link, cheers. BanRay 23:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for taking time out of your busy-ness to support my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. Melesse (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Melesse (talk) 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Musical glasses

Sorry, that was a little confusing. I did not want to have it deleted. I wanted to add the "hangon" response, and it looked to me as if your edits did not effectively remove the speedy tag.

Perhaps this was because you had a stray ] in your redirect, or because all the text still followed the redirect line, and the software was confused.

Or perhaps I was just too hasty ...

But just to clear things up, we were both trying to achieve the same thing: Keep the article as a redirect.

Thanks! — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Musical Glasses

Thanks for the re-direct. Also, please rememeber to sign your comments. Undeath (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, those tildes can suck. I would also like to ask a question. I am going to be re-nominated in about two months for Adminship and I was wondering if you could look at what I've done thus far and if you have any suggestions of what to start doing/stop doing etc... Thanks. Undeath (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you spam

		My RfA
		Thank you very much, Dlohcierekim, for your support in my RfA which I really appreciate. It closed at 83/0/0. I was surprised by the unanimity and will do my best to live up to the new role. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC) The patio at the Partal Palace in the Alhambra, Andalucia.

29 years.

Age is a great teacher. ;) · AndonicO 20:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR KIND WORDS. ALL OF THE OTHER PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE SO RUDE TO ME, SO, ONCE AGAIN, THANK YOU.Igotnukes (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

THERE IS AN ADMIN WHO IS ABUSES HIS PRIVILEGES. MY FRIEND PUT SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT VANDALISM ON AN ARTICLE AND SHE BLOCKED HIM FROM EDITING. WHAT CAN HE DO ABOUT IT?Igotnukes (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

DSRL????

What was wrong with my article?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Applemac20 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you i think others will agree with me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Applemac20 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

RE: Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Misplaced Pages uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dloh cierekim Deleted? 08:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

All of them did belong and followed the Guidelines, Example: the Arab-Speaking countries ,Tunisia does belongs to this list and the link does add information the current article the site is Arab-Christian site. So would you kindly tell what was wrong? or at least prove before Judge?

So a Arab information christian site has nothing to do to with Arab christian articles?

Just look in the links of the Tunisian Articles and they add as much information as link I donated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammedz1 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So what are We Misplaced Pages or Encarta?

Is this the 💕 by everyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammedz1 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Judge? What's a judge got to do with it? You put the same link in several articles that doesn't add anything to the articles. Please read WP:EL. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of links. If you think they belong there, seek consensus on the talk page of each article or set up an RfC to gain consensus that way. Or seek some input at WP:AN. Or if you think there is useful information on the site, quote it and use it for a reference. Cheers, Dloh cierekim Deleted? 16:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Tagging for a possible copyvio image

Hello, I've been asked by an editor to review his contribs, and I'm not sure what template to use for an image that may be a copyvio. Also, is it appropriate to consider an image a possible copyvio just because it's of high quality, or do you need to have found it on the web first? For instance, Image:Uniplex PSA.jpg. Thanks. Dloh cierekim Deleted? 23:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Oops. rather, which is the correct user notification tag to place on the creator's page. Thaks Dloh cierekim Deleted? 23:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

High-resolution images are less likely to be copyright violations because re-users often re-use the lower quality copies, not needing the high resolution. As far as Image:Uniplex Landrover.jpg and Image:Uniplex PSA.jpg, I would assume good faith that they were taken by the uploader. If you still have doubts, I suggest that you ask the uploader to clarify.

Even if an image is found on another web site without attribution to Misplaced Pages, it is hard to tell whether or not that web site is violating copyright or whether the person who uploaded the image to Misplaced Pages is violating copyright.

Use {{pui}} for possibly unfree images. —Remember the dot 23:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

White people

I don't know of any story. It just seems an anoyed anon user with some sort fo agenda regarding Argentina. The Ogre (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

White People

The user Dúnadan has removed my entire paragraph of text and replaced it with his, with no reason whatsoever. If you follow his edits, you can clearly see that he has an agenda, as he has been reverting and removing sections from articles concerning Argentine demographics all across the wiki.

I consider my original text was apropiate for the article, yet the one posted by the Dúnadan is a clear copy-paste of what he typed into Demographics of Argentina. In both articles, Dúnadan has reintroduced the controversial UBA study that says 56% of Argentines have amerindian descent. This study has been proven wrong by many others, such as , as well as arguments explaining that the supposed "amerindian" markers analized are also present in Spanish and Galician populations, of which Argentina has plenty of descendants.

As a result, the UBA study was considered too controversial, and a consensus was reached to keep it out of the Demographics of Argentina article. Yet this user has been adding it again, and even worse, HAS REWRITTEN MY COUNTRIBUTION WITH NO REASON WHATSOEVER, as he basically posted the same information with a different rewording.

I've made more than 500 contributions to the Wiki, with a dynamic IP, but it's pretty sad to see that so many editors are willing to side against an anonymous editor simply because he's anonymous. I guess I'll have to create a nickname for myself, even though that undermines the purpose of the Wiki itself.

Please take a look on this info I gave you. The genetic study has no bearing whatsoever in the article, unless you also want to include genetic studies on Canada, the USA, Brazil, or Australia, which also show similar levels of admixture. Regards,

--200.117.168.68 (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My reply Dloh cierekim Deleted? 01:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dlohcierekim. I will like to point out just a couple of points concerning 200.117's claims:

The "UBA" study, is a study conducted by the Genetics Department of the University of Buenos Aires, whose findings have been corroborated by numerous studies; these findings were also accepted by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of the Government of Argentina., . This study has not been challenged by the Academic community, so there is no "Academic" controversy. The only controversy is that of some Wikipedian users (like the above) who happen to dislike or disagree with the results. I have invited some of them (I have never met 200.117) to provide equally reliable sources to prove that the UBA study has been "proven wrong" other than their own opinions (the link he provides is broken, and other links provided in the past related to discussion amongst geneticists of general genetic tests not on Argentina's particular case). One user actually provided the link to the Ministry of Education which ends up with the following words:

""The information herein summarized is based on scientific observations that allow to redefine the belief in the purported European origin of all the inhabitants of the Argentine territory. According to our results, and many others, generated by different research groups in our country, we can confirm a substantial genetic contribution of the original peoples of the Americas into the current constitution of the Argentine population. Researches of this kind tend to contribute to the characterization of our country's identity in a respectful and anti-discriminatory way" (end of quote).

A similar discussion took place at the Spanish Misplaced Pages with the involvement of several users. (Part of the systemic bias at the English Misplaced Pages is that there are just a few Argentine users not precisely representative of the entire population). There, the users agreed that the studies were valid, and therefore the information was not only kept at es:Argentina, but a new comprehensive and very informative article was created concerning the Argentine genetic composition es:Composición étnica de Argentina.

I will also like to point out that I did not delete his "source". In fact, his source (which happens to be the CIA Factbook) is included in the first sentence of my edits. I simply expanded and complemented the information presented.

I will copy this paragraph to Talk:White American and Talk:Demographics of Argentina and will welcome your opinion on the matter. I would be happy to respond any questions and participate in the debate as long as the results and consensus actually complies with Misplaced Pages's policies of WP:NOR, WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV.

--the Dúnadan 01:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I am aware of the Dispute Resolution venue, even though, in my past experience, it has been of very little help. Honestly, I don't think this issue merits Dispute Resolution. When an edit is comprehensive and fully reliable, and the other is POV and not referenced, I think that the latter clearly violates Misplaced Pages's three core principles.

--the Dúnadan 01:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I've adopted a username and will try to follow your advice. Regards,

--Dharma for one (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dlohcierekim i have been looking forward the article white people and this particular user the Dúnadan who has been editing all the articles with the UBA study made surprisingly in all white and demographics articles about Argentina I personally think we should report it as vandalism because he cannot just appear and erase all our contributions just because he wants to put a racist study against Argentina and all ending up in a great discution because that's what he has created..well I wait your opinion

Fercho85 02:32 09 Feb 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 05:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

My reply.

Sorry but I am kind of new here what do you think we should do?

Fercho85 02:41 09 Feb 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 05:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Seresin

Dloh, you've been completely civil in our disagreement on the issue. And Seresin, i've never really interacted with, but I know if he'd ever posted like others have, we'd have seen a lot of diffs. I really have nothing against the nom, and certainly nothing against those who've voted to support. With RfA we're called to look at what's on the table and support or oppose. That's all I was trying to do. I was troubled by a couple things on the record, and then was moved to oppose by Dorfrottel. I never typed the first post with the intention to start a fight.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA/MBisanz

Hi. In the context of RfA, nom generally refers to the nominator, as opposed to referring to the nominee, which I believe was what you were referring to in your oppose comment at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/MBisanz. Do you mind changing instances of it, to avoid confusion, to either "candidate" or the candidate's username? Cheers, Spebi 06:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Oh, and could you respond here, please? :) Spebi 06:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Silly me. Almost years of RfA's, and I always thought "nom" referred to the person nominated. People even complain of the nom's sig. Will do.(Clarified on RfA, too) Thanks and happy editing. Dloh cierekim Deleted? 21:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages

User talk:Deepfriedokra/20120823-20130831

Archives