Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cloudbound (talk | contribs) at 18:50, 9 December 2006 (My RfA). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I sent you no email. As is clear from our discussion on the Topalov discussion page, you seem egregiously irrational and childishly stubborn- no offence intended- so I can't imagine what good it would do to email you. It seems obvious we aren't communicating on the same wavelength. I suggest mediation vis-a-vis the Topalov article. It's far more civilized, and far more productive. Danny Pi 02:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually you have sent me two emails, both threatening me with death. I can provide the email address and your ip address to a moderator if it is requested. Dionyseus 02:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Veselin Topalov

Hi. I have taken the Veselin Topalov case listed at the Mediation Cabal page. I'm reviewing things now. -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have posted a response in an attempt to mediate the Veselin Topalov case. I hope we can arrive at a mutually agreeable solution. -- Joebeone (Talk) 00:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wii

Its not so much on how the GameCube did as much as Nintendo right now is precieved as kiddy still. This is actually really similar to how they marketed the NES. Video games weren't popular so Nintendo marketed the NES as an entertainment center and made R.O.B. to make the system different then the competition. Either way no one really knows all of Nintendo's reasons for the systems name. P.S. I'm removing the conversation from the Wii talk page because its off topic. Jedi6-(need help?) 04:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reported 3RR violation

I've reported your 3RR violation WP:3RR of the article Elo Rating System. I've attempted mediation, but apparently you are no longer interested in understanding and have decided to call my edits vandalism, which in itself goes against the assume good faith guideline . Dionyseus 03:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been through mediation before; and the mediator basically agreed with me; and the other side if anything was acting far more reasonably than you are. If you actually read the assume good faith you are not required to assume good faith after the other party has persistently, and consistently exhibited bad faith. And while you're at it, read NPOV to find out why you're not following the core rules of the wikipedia.WolfKeeper 03:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with NPOV. I would have no problems at all including the two claims if you manage to provide a source for them, that's what I've been asking from you all along, sources for the two claims. Unfortunately you are refusing to provide sources and are assuming bad faith. Dionyseus 03:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately whilst I did give a reference for Hydra being part of a team, you have failed to provide any evidence at all that Hydra played on its own; which seems to be central to your thesis that Hydra on its own can or has beat the best cyborgs and centaurs. Perhaps if I did create an account on some website or other that you indicated, and managed to find the right person I could prove your claim. But for the hard of thinking like you- that's your problem. Given that I have indeed added a reference supporting my point in the paragraph, whilst you haven't done anything, I further easily cite this as further evidence of your lack of good faith. As to the claim for an ELO of 3200, that has never actually been my claim; I've merely been reverting your persistent vandalisms. If you settle down and actually make well founded edits, or even add reasonable POV to the piece then I won't actually touch it.WolfKeeper 04:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hydra being part of the team is not one of the claims in dispute, the claims I am disputing is the claim that Hydra is regularly beaten by centaurs, and the claim that centaurs play at the 3200 rating level. Those are the two claims I am disputing, and unless you can source them they should not be in the article. Dionyseus 04:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine, well write it down and add it (appropriately, for example in a different paragraph) to the article. Trying to delete POV you don't agree with is the asshole way out. I thought you said you had read NPOV?????WolfKeeper 04:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Write what? Hydra being a centaur or not in a particular tournament has no relevance to the article. All I'm asking is that you either remove the unsourced claim that Hydra is regularly beaten by centaurs, and also the unsourced claim that centaurs play at the 3200 rating level, or stop reverting my removal of these two unsourced claims. Dionyseus 05:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Your points are not well founded. And, whilst I initially assumed good faith, I've established that you're acting in bad faith. I'm therefore going to continue reverting any further vandalisations you may make of this particular article. I'm also not going to discuss this any further outside of mediation.WolfKeeper 05:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case on Elo rating system

Hi! I've tried to help on your mediation case at Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-04-27_Elo_rating_system. Please take a look. Fetofs 16:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

this seems to suggest Zor_champ didn't play alone... Is it just me or Rajlich is contradicting himself badly? Fetofs 23:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, reading the discussion above, it seems you agree that Hydra didn't play alone... So we should settle it then? Fetofs 23:42, 5

May 2006 (UTC)

No I do not agree that Hydra didn't play alone, I believe Hydra played unassisted in the 2006 PAL/CSS Freestyle tournament. The discussion above merely says that I do not think it has any relevance at all. Dionyseus 23:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It does. Hydra playing alone would be a plus to the engines, while assisted it would be just another centaur triumph. BTW, are you fine with this? I was bold as the discussion seems to have completely stopped. Fetofs 22:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Wii Picture

When a free alternative is available, it must be used, regardless of conveniences Where does it say this?--DivineShadow218 04:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Fair_use Dionyseus 05:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

== Image:Wii free.jpg listed for deletion ==

DivineShadow218 06:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sony_Playstation_3_free.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sony_Playstation_3_free.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 09:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

I've requested arbitration. You can chime in your POV here: ]Danny Pi 00:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on your user page

There was some vandalism on your user page from the IP 66.30.216.167. I removed it. Steve p 01:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Dionyseus 01:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

If I was mistaken. I was under the impression that you were the user who had continued to change it. Perhaps it is best if I just withdraw my statement. savidan 22:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Please accept my apologies. savidan 22:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, apology accepted. Dionyseus 22:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dionyseus

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dionyseus. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dionyseus/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dionyseus/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 10:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Mega Millions

Do you have a source for this edit? . I just want to know if I made a mistake, that's all. Thanks, Ian Manka Talk to me! 05:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply! Ian Manka Talk to me! 14:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Using the word "comeback" in the section header is ridiculously dishonest semantics. Unless specified otherwise, a "comeback" is most commonly understood to be successful. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 21:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis

I don't know why you erased Jefferson Davis's middle name. His middle name is Finis and there is no dispute about that. Davis was the last of the children in his family and they gave him the middle name "Finis" because he was the last one his parents planned on having. Is there a good reason for erasing it? It seems to me that you would want a complete entry and a middle name helps with information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.205.147.96 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks, you're apparently right. You might want to create a username. Dionyseus 04:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Rory Demetrioff

Hello, this matter has already been addressed with another administrator: Fang Aili.

Thank you for your concern. If you have any questions, do not hestitate to contact us at 416-534-7115. Thanks. Wil Everett

Why would you deny people from Canada to have access to researching this individual. He appears on the government of Ontario and Government of Canada registry for active lobbyists. I think this needs to be opened up to a wider discussion. How can that take place. Also, it should be encouraged to review already public information on google and on the government of Ontario Integrity Commission website at: http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Integrity/RegistrationGeneral.nsf/PublicFramesWeb?OpenPage

Also, a number of collegues also have entries in Misplaced Pages including: Leslie Noble, Deb Hutton, Gerald Caplan, Ian Brodie, Rod Love

Why is this individual singled out? Perhaps he is not in the right category on wikipedia?

Thank you for your help and insight.

Oakville123 01:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The article has been speedy deleted several times for non-notability and fails WP:Bio, I see no reason why it should be restored again. Dionyseus 01:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Everywhere Girl

Hi there. Fyi, I've written a response in the afd discussion to the latest developments in the Everywhere Girl affair. (I've never been near the center of an internet fad before!) Bwithh 08:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea I posted a comment on her Everywhere Girl blog, it is currently awaiting her approval, but basically my response was quite similar to what you had to say. Dionyseus 08:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I mislisted an AfD you voted in

I listed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fertility Retreat imperfectly. I should not have included the following nominations within it:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fios, Inc.
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Novas Software, Inc.

I have now, on advice, left Randine Lewis in the original nomination and broken the other two out. This message is to ensure that you see this and have the opportunity to comment upon the other nominations. I have sent it to you and th eothers who had already commented on the original bundled AfD only.

My apologies for the confusion.

Fiddle Faddle 10:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Dionyseus 10:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Quick comment

Hi Dionyseus. I noticed that you have marked a few articles for speedy deletion, and you have voted for "Speedy delete" a few times also today in AfD. I just wanted to remind you that Speedies are really for things like absolute nonsense, blank pages, vanity pages, etc, and not for lack of notability. You can read WP:CSD for more info. (you probably already know that). Also, you might want to check out WP:PROD, which provides a better way to delete non-controversial material for lack of notability without going to AfD. Thanks, and happy editing : ) AdamBiswanger1 13:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

CSD tagging of non-notable articles

Please note that CSD A7 is for pages which assert no notability about their subjects. That may not mean they are non-notable.

If all the article says is "<X> is a professor from Germany," it would be CSD A7 material. But if the article also mentions "<X> is the inventor of device <Y> and has been interviewed by The New York Times and Time Magazine," even if no URLs was given for the claim of being interviewed, the mention of multiple interviews would be an assertion of notability along WP:BIO lines and exclude the article from CSD A7. Likewise for a band article that states "Their songs charted at #7 in the UK" - even if no URL is given and the claim is eventually found to be false, it constitutes an assertion of notability along WP:MUSIC lines, and article is exempt from A7.

Lastly, please do not link CSD A7 with the Google test, which is not foolproof and has its deficiencies. Regular deletions via AfD can take care of our bandcruft and bio-cruft decently. --Kimchi.sg 13:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of CSD A7. Dionyseus 14:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Holland Landing Public School

Hi, you voted to delete Holland Landing Public School, and one of the reasons that the nominator gave and that you agreed with that the article was of a rather low quality. I've made some improvements to the article, so I'd appreciate it if you'd take another look at the article and perhaps change your vote if you feel that you could. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 22:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me. Dionyseus 23:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Everywhere Girl

Just want to say thanks for your work on the Everywhere girl page. Noticed in your profile you're 23 from MA. I'm 22 from CT. --TastyHiHatWork 09:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Dionyseus 10:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Thanks for your vote and link on the Blugrass Brewery AfD. I will let the nom stand for a little while longer, and if it gets a couple of more keep votes withdraw it. Viridae 00:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Dionyseus 00:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

PlayStation article

Yes, it has been discussed before on the PS3 page and unlike what you said at that discussion page, the consensus was to remove the Japanese...Mackan 02:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The first vote ended 4-3, one vote higher doesn't qualify as concensus, and the Japanese secondary name was never removed. And it looks like this time the vote is 5-2 in favor of keeping it. The Playstation 2 article has had the Japanese secondary name since January of 2004, and no one has ever been bothered by it. All of a sudden you are all up in arms about it for the Playstation 3 article. I have no idea why you're so up in arms about such a trivial matter, nevertheless I'm willing to defend the Japanese secondary name for as long as it takes. Dionyseus 03:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This vote doesn't count as proper procedure wasn't followed (which is the reason I haven't cast my vote). See Misplaced Pages:Straw polls. No, I shouldn't have used the word consensus, that was mistaken (but you shouldn't have said there was "overwhelming support for the Japanese name"). I think your comment "I'm willing to defend the Japanese secondary name for as long as it takes" shows of a lack of understanding of basic Misplaced Pages principles. You seem to have made up your mind without listening to my arguments, and unwilling to listen to any further argumentation. Yes, it is a rather trivial matter and I didn't intend to start an argument about it, that's why I at first just removed the katakana. But if it's gonna be an argument it should be a fair one and I'm clearly stating why the katakana doesn't belong in the article. Mackan 03:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read your arguments and I believe they are incorrect. Both votes have shown that your argument has no concensus. The Playstation 2 article has had the katakana name since January 2004. I think your removal of the katakana from the Playstation article, and your removal of the katakana from the Nintendo Gamecube article, were erroneous because you claim to have reached concensus when in fact it did not. If you refuse to abide by the concensus then we clearly should request a mediation case. Dionyseus 03:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Your behavior is starting to come off as infecting when you revert my changes to PS2 and Gamecube and especially when you say "The concensus is 5-2 in favor of keeping the secondary Japanese name in the Playstation 3 article. Do not delete the name until a decision is made)". First of all, as I've already told you and stated more than once on the PS3 talk page, the straw poll is not valid (and even if had been a valid straw poll, polls are never binding, see Misplaced Pages: Straw polls). Secondly, if you are unbiased why would you then not complain about user:Havok reverting the PS3 page after stating he wouldn't revert it but argue about it. Mackan 03:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm protecting those pages from blanking of the Japanese secondary name. As for Havok, take a look at your user page, he gave a perfectly valid reason for placing the Japanese secondary name back into the article. Dionyseus 03:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said in my reverts we had reached consensus, I merely meant that my reasons for removing the name could be found in more detail at the PS3 talk page. You believe my arguments are incorrect but you won't specify why! I think you are wasting people's time if you can't even argue about a simple thing like if the katakana should be included or not without requesting meditation. Please address my arguments at the PS3 talk page. Also there is no consensus reached right now so how could I refuse it? Especially when I haven't touched the article in question since Havok took it up on the talk page.Mackan 03:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've already given many reasons why the katakana name should not be removed. For example, one of your arguments is that the katakana name takes up too much space. That's clearly false and no one has ever complained about it in the Playstation 2 article and that name has been there since January 2004. The only person who has complained about it taking up too much space is you for the Playstation 3 article. Dionyseus 04:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Your 2 arguments are "It's a Japanese console" without any further reasoning and the 2nd one "it's short" (just as frank). You seem to have little knowledge of the Japanese language, not a crime in itself but you won't listen to somebody who obviously posseses more knowledge on the subject than you. Yes, it's a Japanese product but romaji, roman letters such as used in the name "PLAYSTATION 3" are also a part of the Japanese language. You seem to have a misguided conception that only katakana, hiragana and kanji should be regarded as Japanese, when in fact, the official name in Japan as well as elsewhere is the latin lettering "PLAYSTATION 3". Also, I'm not the only one who has addressed the fact that it's taking up space, see the old vote where one user referred to it as "verbal pollution".Mackan 04:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well first you claimed that I never gave any reason to support the inclusion of the name, and now you admit that I give two reasons. Well now you can add another reason, Sony of Japan sometimes uses the katanaka to refer to the Playstation 3. Dionyseus 04:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You're obviously trying to play some "war of words" with me, and you keep on lying, which you've done since your first post on the current dispute. I never said you didn't give any reasons for inclusion, I said you didn't respond to my arguments, which you still haven't. To be frank, Misplaced Pages would be better off without people like you who have no interest in an honest debate. I shall have no further dealings with you, although I think it's to the detriment of the PS3, PS2 etc articles I don't have any desire to waste more time dealing with people like you. Mackan 17:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Havok (T/C/c) 22:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Goodbye

Then please stop your rampant agenda against any news source you do not personally like. Calling one of the most respected technology news sources a blog has no bearing in fact and only proves that nothing you say is to be trusted. Do not attempt to contact me again. And by the way, it's always the trolls, vandals, and POV-pushers who cite WP:AGF, never the legitimate users. jgp (T|C) 01:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, you won't have to worry about me getting involved with you anymore. I'm done with you, I'm done with technology articles, and once I'm done with a large project that I've recently started (which will take a while, but it will be 99% of my contributions, and only the small minority interested in Super Sentai will care), I'll be done with Misplaced Pages. jgp (T|C) 02:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your personal attacks, and I most certainly don't appreciate you indirectly calling me a troll and vandal. I have alerted the authorities to remedy this situation. Dionyseus 02:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You have alerted the authorities? For what? I am sure that jgp is quaking in his boots. I'll go further to say that not only is jgp right about WP:AGF, but I read the deletion discussion for EvGirl and I've found you downright offensive and without intelligence, humility, or humor. To armchair psychoanalyze you, I think you are powerless in real life, so you have become the control freak/bully that you are here. To think that people like you have any power within the Misplaced Pages, is disheartening at best. Do you drown puppies for fun in your spare time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.1.175.16 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, this guy is the most petty wikipedian I have ever seen.. what is your problem man? Come on, add knowledge to Wiki, not take it away! I have never felt like going away from Misplaced Pages before but with people like you, I am really thinking about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.113.143.122 (talk • contribs) .

You are somewhat misunderstanding here, as demonstrated by replies and the turn the debate took, the trigger was rather the libellous tone and uncivil attitude. Anonimity isn't a license for uncivility in posts, and this is of especial importance for administrative tasks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.229.207.75 (talk • contribs) .

Hello, "the authorities" speaking. Dionyseus, I've had a little word with Jgp. I think it's a bit sensitive of you to label his posts personal attacks, though. And his point about WP:AGF is a vaild one: it's a bad idea to throw around accusations of violating WP:AGF if you want to make a good impression. Take a look at WP:AAGF, it has some interesting thoughts on the subject. By contrast, User:68.1.175.16, you are out of line. Please don't armchair psychoanalyze people on Misplaced Pages. I'm serious. "Comment on content, not on the contributor" is the esssence of WP:NPA. The inside of Dionyseus' head, or his real life, aren't your business. Talk about his posts, don't make remarks about him. Seriously. Bishonen | talk 03:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen. I've been getting attacked by The Inquirer and Everywhere Girl fans because I was the nominator for its deletion. The Inquirer published an article attacking me and Misplaced Pages in general. Dionyseus 03:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The Inquirer

Thanks for the note. I think the Inquirer is irked about your and other people's negative comments about the Inquirer, rather than Everywhere Girl (I had barely heard of the Inquirer before this, so don't have an opinion one way or the other). But it's nothing something they can do much about - they possibly can get WP central administration to authorize the rebuilding of the The Inquirer article (so every negative claim would have to be rigorously sourced), but that's about it. Bwithh 14:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sharon Janis

You seem quite adept at making a reasonable argument. After reading my latest draft of the article, available on the Sharon Janis discussion page, perhaps I could get the benefit of hearing some of your debating skills. If you believe I'm wrong, show something like the belief I do in saving it. User:Headshaker 09:15 15 July 2006

Hi, I'm not familiar with Sharon Janis, but I'll give it a look. Dionyseus 12:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Inquirer/Wikiparrots

Just thought you'd like to know that as of time of writing, the Inqurier front page has a large side banner with a picture of a parrot. If you hover your cursor over the banner, the message reads "Wikiparrots are really geniuses", and the banner links to a newspaper article about new research on parrot intelligence which show that the birds are much smarter than previously thought and have intelligences comparable to chimps, dolphins and uh... small children. Very trivial stuff, but I'll take it as a begrudging compliment from the Inquirer, and give them credit that this is a sign that they have a sense of humour about their puffed up claims of "outrage" over Misplaced Pages/Everywhere Girl etc. Bwithh 18:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hah I saw it now, thanks Bwithh. Dionyseus 19:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Dionyseus! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. —Xyrael _{/ 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)} 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support!

You're welcome, keep up the great work. Dionyseus 03:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your RfA support!

		Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA!
		To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 06:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Y'know what's really funny? All that and they still haven't told me what's in the half-full glass... :D ~Kylu (u|t) 06:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hah ;p You're welcome Kylu. Dionyseus 06:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Misza13's pile!

Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page. Misza13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing! NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated ROT-26 algorithm. Ability to decipher it indicates a properly functioning optical sensor array.

Parimarjan Negi as second youngest GM

I know of the Chessbase article. Problem is that the date of the last norm is said to be 1 July 2006 . If that is the case, he was 13 years, 4 months (not 3), 22 days. I suspected an honest miscalculation and wanted to provoke someone to verify what date is the correct one.--EvenT 08:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you are correct. Carlsen is therefore the second youngest Grandmaster, Negi is third. Dionyseus

Now it turns out that the age of Magnus Carlsen becoming Grandmaster was one month wrong. Correct is 13 years, 4 months (not 3), 27 days, referring to 26 April 2004 when he won his 3rd GM norm in Dubai.--EvenT 10:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

UCMST

I attend the school. What I was adding is pure fact. Please allow me to enhance the page since I know what I'm talking about.

Thank you.

Benjamin M. Trueman (1/69.14.43.97 16:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC))^-1

Hi, you cannot add yourself as a reference. Claims must be verifiable and cannot be sourced by Wikipedians. Dionyseus 16:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fred the Undercover Cat

Thanks for the edit. While I agree that all cats should be kept indoors (mine are), I felt that saying as such in the article was inappropriate. Your edit about him "escaping his home" is a perfect compromise, the wording is very smooth and is in keeping with the tone of the article. Thanks again. Rpelham 18:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Rpelham

Gibril Haddad

I'm not taking offense, Dionyseus, and appreciate your speediness, but when my first edit summary says "Started article, more in a few minutes," you could give me more than 7 minutes before nominating it for deletion.  :-) TheronJ 01:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Theronj. I did see your note on the edit summary, that's why I did not nominate it for deletion, I prodded it for deletion thus allowing you to provide a valid reason for the inclusion of the article rather than nominating it for deletion automatically. I'm currently reviewing the evidence you have recently added to the article. Dionyseus 02:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Give me a couple days. I agree that notability is a close call -- he's widely cited on the Islamic internet sites, but I'm not familiar enough with them to judge which sites, if any, are reliable or notable. TheronJ

Via Anelli Wall

My english is really bad, so I have problems to explain myself; I had no idea that the Guardian Unlimited interested himself of via Anelli, and I'm very surprised! :-) I still think that the wall does not deserves an article, but I suppose that the article will remain on en.wiki (and on fr.wiki and de.wiki, translated from the same user, I suppose).

Note that there is no article about it in it.wiki, and chatting with others admin (I am an it.wiki admin too) we were quite sure that it is not an important fact; it's really more important the whole via Anelli problem, but I don't believe to be able to change the article myself.

Just don't think that I am trying to delete that article for my political ideas or something similar :-)

Bye, piero tasso 01:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Warning

• It is usually consider a bad taste to remove warnings from your talk page. If you believe the warnings are in bad faith, please explain it. Jgp, can you be more specific what edits of Dionisius you consider a violation of WP:NPOV? abakharev 07:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  Dio removed (sourced) information from The Inquirer that is necessary for NPOV. It concerns a mistake published by the Inquirer: the mistake was made by a source the Inquirer cited, which misquoted its own source. Thus, it wasn't the Inquirer's own mistake. Dio was removing any references to the mistake coming from a source other than the Inquirer, and was reverting any attempt to add it back. There is a very large difference between publishing false information that one made up and being misled by a source: the latter was the case, and Dio has been removing all references to that, leading the page to imply that the former was the case. He has since given up on removing the statements, but he persists in removing the warnings from his talk page. jgp _C 07:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Here's the unencyclopedic sentence I removed: . Jgp then claimed I violated the NPOV policy, and in his edit summary he said he "re-added" the sentence that I removed, but clearly he modified the sentence to be encyclopedic: , apparently trying to make it seem as if I had removed an encyclopedic sentence when I did not. Dionyseus 07:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

    OK, I think the phrase Dionisius removed was awkward. It is probably worth to explain that the error in publication was a good faith error caused by the Inquirer's source rather than e.g. a bribe from NVDIA or Microsoft, but I see no indications Dionisius removed the phrase to advance a particular point of view. I have removed the warnings from the talk page of Dionisius. In future: Jgp, please assume WP:AGF and Dionisius, avoid removing warnings yourself abakharev 07:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

    Thanks Abakharev, much appreciated. Dionyseus 08:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

    Alright, I'll drop this for now. For the record, this is not an isolated incident: Dio has a record of making POV edits on The Inquirer ( being particularly egregious). jgp _C 08:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

    That edit is based on facts, but I agreed to allow the 'Nintendo Game Gear' and 'Fudo' claim to be removed from the article because it did not meet the verifiability criteria, also I didn't feel that these two claims were as big an issue as the other errors The Inquirer has made. For the record, Jgp has a history of personally attacking me: I will bring this issue to arbitration, I believe his personal attacks on me require a ban. Dionyseus 08:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The Inquirer

I'd be more inclined to indulge you if you hadn't falsely accused me of sending you death threats, much less wikilawyering your way for the past year. Moreover, I'm not inclined to back off when the ArbCom is currently ongoing, and my assertions about you have been vindicated by your continued pattern of behavior. It is not your right to delete my posts, since you can hardly be called an impartial custodian on this matter (since the topic is you yourself). If you are so certain that your behavior has been NPOV and kosher, you shouldn't worry about it. Otherwise, let an admin (not someone with whom you're buddy buddy) decide that it's inappropriate. The fact of the matter is that you glob on to every new rule you encounter, and try to abuse it to your advantage (e.g. accusing me of stalking, when it's simply collecting evidence for an ongoing ArbCom case). Danny Pi 13:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You claim you didn't send me the death threats, however the arbcom decided that they cannot prove whether or not it came from you, this does not necessarily mean you are innocent. You make claims of wikilawyering, yet you did not provide any evidence in the arbcom. Again you make your claim that I'm "buddy buddy" with certain admins, yet you provide no such evidence. As for your off-topic post in The Inquirer talk page, I have requested for an administrator to look into it. Dionyseus 13:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Tag-teaming

You don't get to tag-team with other participants in a reversion dispute to avoid violating the 3RR. Once your 3 hour block expires, come to Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) and Talk:Number Three and work with me, DrBat, and Matthew as we develop a consensus. — Philwelch t 02:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, I only made one revert on those articles, you are clearly violating the block policy. Dionyseus 02:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what tag-teaming is. You have three or four people reverting so they can all revert once and none of them breaks 3RR. Are you going to be confrontational or are you going to be productive? — Philwelch t 02:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't make redirects when you don't have concensus, you should put up a poll or see what the other editors think about such a move. You have violated 3RR twice tonight. . Instead of blocking me, you should have warned me instead of treating me as if I was a vandal. Dionyseus 02:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Boldness is encouraged on Misplaced Pages, but so is discussion. If you agree to leave things as-is and join the discussion, I'll unblock you immediately. We had moved on from confrontation to collaboration when you tried to pull us back down into the pit again. That's why you were blocked. And I do believe my actions reflect consensus when you consider the wider community standards that we have for fictional entries—it's just that most of the more serious editors have more important things to edit about so these pages are infrequently patrolled. — Philwelch t 02:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the block - Philwelch, I feel it's highly inappropriate to block someone you are in direct 3RR-violating edit-war conflict with. FCYTravis 03:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks FCYTravis. I'm very upset over this completely unwarranted block, but I'm glad it was resolved quickly. I will submit Philwelch's actions for review. Dionyseus 03:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Kpjas' RFA

Hi Dionyseus!

On Kpjas' RFA, you have voted oppose based on his apparent lack of experience, per Thatcher ("under 200 edits in Misplaced Pages space, no edits to the administrative noticeboard or intervention against vandalism, and fewer than 10 edits to AfD"). In fact, Kpjas is already an admin on the Polish Misplaced Pages, and has 37,000 edits there, including 2,600 to WP space over there. You have opposed based on inexperience, but these facts clearly indicate plenty of experience in the required areas. Dionyseus, you want an experienced editor for admin. Kpjas is clearly experienced. Without badgering you, I urge you to reconsider your vote in this particular RfA. Happy editing! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 23:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Firsfron, I will review the evidence you have provided. Dionyseus 23:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Dionyseus. I appreciate your review. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 23:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the evidence and have decided to change my vote to neutral as per Thatcher131. Dionyseus 00:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you looking into the matter. Thanks, Dionyseus. --Firsfron of Ronchester 01:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Award of a Barnstar

		Barnstar of Patience
		Awarded to Dionyseus for his patience and thoughtfulness in dealing with sufferers of the debilitating condition Adminitis. Awarded by Addhoc

Thanks Addhoc :) Dionyseus 19:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A question about off-topic requests in article talk pages

As a general rule I think it's a bad idea to remove any talk page comments that aren't obvious vandalism. Removal can be construed in too many negative ways. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it Laura. Dionyseus 19:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Haddad revisited

Dionyseus, I've removed your PROD on Gibril Haddad, but won't take offense if you decide to AFD it. As I discuss on the talk page, notability is a close call, but I think Haddad is notable, mostly because most contemporary Islamic thought seems to be happening on the internet or in the Islamic press, not in the academic press, and the searches I can run seem to indicate that Haddad is influential and notable in those areas.

I wasn't able to find an Islam project to ask for comment, but would have liked to -- I'm not confident in our ability to assess the notability of an Islamic religious writer without a better understanding of contemporary Islamic thought. Thanks, and I'd love to hear your thoughts, TheronJ 18:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Theron. I have now posted some helpful comments at the talk page. Dionyseus 20:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dionyseus

This arbitration case is close and the final decision has been posted at the link above. It is recommended by the Committee that you consider carefully the suggestions of others regarding punctuation and other matters you are not familiar with. It is no use arguing about well established punctuation conventions.

It is recommended that Veselin Topalov be edited in accord with the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons. Special attention is drawn to Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_criticism and Misplaced Pages:Three-revert_rule#Reverting_potentially_libellous_material making removal of poorly sourced negative information from the biography of a living person an exception to the three revert rule (3RR).

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 20:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. I'm very satisfied with the arbitration process. Dionyseus 21:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I know how 3rr works. I have started a thread if you'd like to discuss. Marskell 08:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Just making sure you're aware that you're up to 3 reverts now in less than 24 hours on that article. Dionyseus 08:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I don't usually go there, but I'm concerned that the discussion is being arbitrarily cut-off. As I said in the last edit summary, the largest discussion on the matter includes more than two dozen people noting merge. Marskell 08:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Deville's RfA

Congrats on your successful RFA, Deville. Dionyseus 03:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA message

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

Your "photograph deletion" mission

Hi, I think your time would be better spent trying to properly license images rather than simply tagging them for deletion. Dionyseus 16:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Dionyseus. Don't worry about my time, thanks. By the way, do you consider "This image will only be used for the Keira Knightley article" a valid fair use rationale for the image Image:KeiraKnightley PridePrejudice.jpg on the top of the Keira Knightley article? Awaiting, --Abu Badali 16:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Abu. Yes, I consider it a valid rationale. Dionyseus 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is not a sufficient rationale. Please see the section on fair-use rationales at Help:Image page for more information. --Yamla 16:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR

This is a friendly warning. You are in danger of violating the 3RR policy on Image:KeiraKnightley PridePrejudice.jpg. I think you know about 3RR and almost certainly are watching yourself just to make sure you don't violate it but I thought I'd point it out to you in case you had forgotten. --Yamla 16:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Yamla. Dionyseus 18:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Check out the result, now fair use rationale is added at the article... Kreca 19:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Abu badali & unspecified sources

Thanks for writing to User:Abu badali and supporting these images staying on Misplaced Pages; it's greatly appreciated - Ivan Kricancic 09:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:NedLamont listed for deletion. What can I do?

and I wasn't even the one who uploaded the image. I just uploaded a new version of it and used the source that was already listed on the page. Now it's up for deletion. Is there a way to stop it? mirageinred 17:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

A humble request for your opinion

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. Recently, you expressed an oppose opinion with regards to my RfA. I would like to thank your feedback on this but I need another critical feedback from you. If you could spare a few minutes to voice any concerns you may be having with regards to my contributions to this project since my last RfA on this page, I would be most grateful. Once again, thank you for your time! --Siva1979 06:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Midnight Syndicate

Per your suggestion I added the dispute templates to Midnight Syndicate without changing or removing the content that the unsigned users keep reverting to, and it was immediately reverted again by unsigned user User:162.40.19.208 to remove the templates. I even attempted to locate more specific clean up templates, but everything I am doing is being reverted. This topic is obviously disputed, and not just by me, I am only one of many. Could you please look into this? I have requested page protection for my earlier edits, which I attempted to keep NPOV, and have requested other help, but am getting no replies. Honestly, the more I try to write from a NPOV the more I become absolutely convinced that the multiple reverts are being done by this band for self-promotional purposes. I have tried to open a discussion dialog but they do not reply. Oroboros 1 04:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you seem to be very emotionally involved in this case, I'd suggest you take a deep breath, we're talking about a band here, it's not like we're at the end of the world. If I get time, I'll read the discussion on the talk page, and I'll see if we can work out something with the other editors. Dionyseus 07:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I am not emotionally involved but I would like to write a factual article. The fact that this band keeps replacing factual content (ie: early development and the references I have gathered) and replacing it with self-promotion and completely removing all of my edits and refernces smacks to me of an attempt to alter history. It is something they have been accused of doing and I see now it's really what they have been doing (for years, it seems)... I tested this theory before going forward, with some very slight edits (rearranging dates to be consecutive rather than what offers the best promotion, correcting the dates that members joined and what they are credited with doing, and listing upcoming projects instead of the sales pitch that currently resides there). Those edits I made are factual, based on older articles (pre-dating one very significant member leaving the band), album booklets, articles that the band's material appeared in, and even a copyright search. The band (I am assuming) is now attempting to hide all this history while promoting itself and a deceptive version of history. I ask that you look into it in more depth and consider even the comments they have left in the edit summaries. They appear very personal. A few seem to indicate that the unsigned users think my edits and a few others are some "disgruntled business partner," but that's not the case. I'd been sent a cd by this band for review, and was considering doing an interview, until I started doing this research. As a contributing journalist for two fanzines, I find it deplorable that stuff like this can happen. Also, I will be much more careful in the future I do band interviews. Anyway, it's been a little frustrating that my request for dispute negotiation has thus far been ignored, except from you. I just figured that was due to the templates being removed. Oroboros 1 04:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

New comment for you

Hi Dionyseus, I left a new comment for you here, and also below that. Your opinion is welcome. Oroboros 1 10:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Dionyseus. I believe the latest edits I made to Midnight Syndicate are indeed notable and verifiable. I did not intend to use any misleading edit summary but if that is your reason for reverting I will be happy to be more specific in the edit summary. Your reversion of the Midnight Syndicate page is unwarrented, and the text you reverted to is proven to be untrue and misleading. I stated the matter in a concise manner and presented both sides of the arguement. The fact that you seem to be a game fan leads me to believe that you are too close to this matter to look at it with a neutral pov. I doubt you have taken time to look at the references I have noted and the corresponding Panic! at the disco article which I based my decision. You have to realize now that it is the band editing their own article and I cannot believe you can support that! Wiki is supposed to be a place of historical fact, not a slanted view of history and certainly not a promotional platform for bands. Oroboros 1 14:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

D: You have mistakenly and I believe maliciously posted a 3RR warning on my talk page. I did not revert any content. I have been adding content all along, and it is all verifiable. I'll ask you to double check, look at my references and the content added (which includes the content my opposition added while the matter was under discussion), and remove the warning on my page. I will also request that you note how my opposition refuses to enter into any discussion, refuses to acknowledge anything, and though I have tried to make concessions to work through our differences, they have made none whatsoever. What is your role in this. Are you attempting to help mediate or have you already chosen a side? I believe you are biased given your affiliations. Pleas show me you can mediate without just reverting my valid contributions. Oroboros 1 22:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 10:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Congrats Jusjih. Dionyseus 19:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof! 1.3

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Dionyseus! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand 04:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it works. Dionyseus 05:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalize? wtf are you talking about??

For one i have not vandalized a single word in the PS3 article, I am going to buy a ps3 (hopefully) in March-Feb. Alright? With that beeing said I don't want to even THINK about accusing me EVER again, IS that UNDERSTOOD boy? Zabrak 05:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

HAHAH personal attacks? Wow don't tell me you have NOTHING on me so you are trying to ban me for ludacris things as "personal attacks" Seriously, show me how I attacked you buddy. :D Zabrak 05:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Tell me how I am vandalizing the PS3 article

Really, I have done NOTHING to it, now you got 10 hours to respond or I will concact somebody who CAN help me out on this, IS THAT UNDERSTOOD? Zabrak 06:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

VGCharts

As stated on the talk page, VGCharts is, has never been, and never will be an appropriate source for this list. A consensus has been found on this. Please revert, thank you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

To start, Polling is evil.

To end, there was a consensus gathered at WP:CVG's discussion page as well. All in all, including you, it is 8 to 2. An 80% consensus is a significant number. Additionally, according to the discussion on WP:CVG, the owner of VGCharts specifies not to be used as a source for sales information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Human "Test"

I wasn't performing a test on the human article; I was editing it. Why do you think this was a test? BugEyedMonster 21:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dinohippus.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dinohippus.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 04:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Cats project newsletter

Hello. Please find here a copy of the first Cats WikiProject newsletter. Please feel free to make any comments, suggestions, etc., here or at the project page itself. Thank you. Badbilltucker 16:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi Dionyseus, I am very thankful to you for supporting and comments on my succesful RfA. Shyam 06:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello Dionyseus. I wanted to thank you with flowers (well, flower) for taking the time to participate in my RfA, which was successful. I'm very grateful for your support. I assure you I'll continue to serve the project to the very best of my ability and strive to use the admin tools in a wise and fair manner. Please do let me know if I can be of assistance and especially if you spot me making an error in future. Many thanks once again. Yours, Rockpocket 08:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

3RR report

I would enjoy it if you actually explained why one unrelated revert has anything to do with three other reverts. That, or remove your report if you are unable to. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a revert, I'd suggest you read WP:3RR for a clear definition of what a revert is. Dionyseus 06:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So if I reverted an edit to Kid Icarus, an edit to Henry Fonda, an edit to April, and an edit to L, would I have violated 3RR? No, because those are unrelated. Just like how there's no relation between removing VGCharts' numbers and reverting your blanking of the article. And I would love to hear why a manual edit, removing stuff that was being reverted several days ago, which also included edits to game links. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hell, I even had a reason to it - the one who initially started the debate said he doesn't care. The edit war over VGCharts' numbers ended the day that they were being reverted back and forth. They do not carry over to another day. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR is per single article, it does not accumulate accross articles. You yourself admitted ("Just because I reverted two things on the same page") that it was a revert. Dionyseus 06:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If I reverted an edit on the same day as the edit was reverted, then yes. How can one participate in an ended edit war? It's like saying "I participated in WWII because I played Wolfenstein once". The edit war was over. It does not count. What if someone removed your AfD thing from the page, would it violate 3RR for me to put it back up? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

One need not participate in an edit war for an edit to be a revert. As for the AfD notification, restoring it would simply be reverting vandalism, but when you've already violated or are close to violating 3RR it is advisable to allow another editor to revert the vandalism. Once again this is all explained at WP:3RR. Dionyseus 06:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If 3RR is cut and dry enough to say that a revert of something several days old can add on to a completely different edit war, then 3RR should apply to any reversion.

Hell, I state my reverts were justified - you made no prior discussion towards blanking the majority of the article, and there is no policy or guideline that supports wiping out the article to remove sourceless content. That is borderline vandalism - met with undeniable proof that VGCharts is unverifiable, you threaten to AfD it (which would imply that VGCharts staying would prevent you from putting it on the AfD), you blank the page with no justification, and then you put it on the AfD after you can't revert anymore. No matter how much I have to, this is a borderline bad faith case. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have always argued that a game should be sourced, by removing VGCharts you have effectively made almost 100% of the entire article unsourced and thus the AfD is completely justified. If someone manages to provide a verifiable source for the majority of the entries I would gladly withdraw my nomination. Dionyseus 06:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So explain to me how blanking the page will help the page be sourced. You are damaging the article by blanking it, and if you cared about the article being sourced, you wouldn't remove the contents. That does nothing for the quality of the article. And are you quite sane? You are saying "if you don't find sources for hundreds of games, the article will be deleted". You are unable to prove that the article is unverifiable. That alone invalidates your AfD. And the fact that you have a good cover argument doesn't mean it's nto a bad faith nom. You only cared about deleting the article when VGCharts couldn't be linked to. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability says that any material that is likely to be challenged needs a reliable source which should be cited in the article. I think the majority of the entries can not be verifiably sourced and have thus nominated the article for deletion. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, not the one who challenges the material. Dionyseus 07:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So to convenience the editors, you blank the article and try to prevent it from being sourced? The fact that you refused to allow the unsourced content be on the article does not show that you have any interest whatsoever in the article being sourced. You responded to VGCharts' removal with an AfD threat. Not because it's unsourcable. And I did not add or restored the material, dozens of editors created it. And in all likelyhood, it'll be those same editors who rebuild the article. Immediately blanking and AfDing an article does not create an opportunity to replace the sources. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, I am still waiting for you to show I have violated 3RR. The 3RR policy does not apply to reverting three day old content, just like it doesn't apply to me reverting someone three times, and then reverting an edit to the article which replaced the contents of the article with the word "penis". - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that I nominated the article for deletion shows that I want the article to be improved. If I could improve it I would, unfortunately I do not believe it is possible. As for 3RR, I've told you several times the policy is sufficiently explained at WP:3RR.

So you admit that you are abusing the AfD? AfD is meant to get an article deleted, not to force people to improve it.

And, I fail to see in 3RR where it says "any four reverts on one page in one day violates 3RR". - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD is a process by which we determine whether an article merits inclusion. In this case I believe the article does not merit inclusion because it is original research and I don't think it is possible to provide verifiable sources for the majority of the entries. You are of course encouraged to improve the article during the AfD process, and we're free to change our votes and opinions in response to improvements on the state of the article. Dionyseus 07:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not origianl research. Those games were put up because of VGCharts, not peoples' own guesses. They remain up because blanking them makes it impossible for someone to go to this article and source them without knowing that the games are in the history. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for the Support I'd like to express my huge thanks to you, Dionyseus, for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with 100% support at 71/0/1. Needless to say, I am very suprised at the huge levels of support I've seen on my RfA, and at the fact that I only had give three answers, unlike many other nominees who have had many, many more questions! I'll be careful with my use of the tools, and invite you to tell me off if I do something wrong! Thanks, Martinp23 14:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!

A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Misplaced Pages as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. Thanks again! ReyBrujo 20:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Tango's RfA

I don't know if it was intentional, but your vote in Tango's RfA goes as follows: "Oppose I see no reason to oppose this candidate. Dionyseus 21:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)"

Just wanted to let you know, in case you want to fix it or something. Nishkid64 01:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out to me, I have now fixed it. Dionyseus 01:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Midnight Syndicate

Hi, Dionyseus - I just wanted to say thank you for your help with the Midnight Syndicate article. It's nice to see someone else shares my opinion of what the other side is trying to accomplish with their edits. Sorry I referred to you as an admin - I guess I just assumed because you do so much work here. Thanks again! - Skinny McGee 20:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

I would like to express my appreciation of the time you spent considering my successful RfA. Thankyou Gnangarra 13:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Cat

What nonsense are you talking about? I added a photograph and fixed the one that is stairstepping. I am also in the process of adding more information to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoky Bear (talk • contribs)

You did not add a paragraph, you inserted images of cats, sometimes the same image of a cat multiple times in the article. Dionyseus 06:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How does adding a link constitute a vandalism? HUH? Is it because I forgot to add the second set of brackets [ [ ? Vandalism is the complete replacement or deletion of text. Don't be silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoky Bear (talk • contribs)

Intentionally breaking links such as the Wikitionary links you vandalised is vandalism. Dionyseus 09:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Oh, the humanity! I had my doubts about accepting a nomination for a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the stir it caused as it drifted to the ground in flames! Still, it was as educational as ever. Thanks for your input; it will be on my mind as I continue to edit Misplaced Pages, and perhaps I will have earned your support if another nomination comes around. Kafziel 15:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Block log

Hello!

I have been warned by another administrator (User:Khoikhoi) for posting this comment. User:Irpen has also posted a notice on Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks.2C_harrassment.2C_baiting_and_pestering_by_user:Oden. As you are one of the users mentioned in my comment I would value your input into this matter.

Your input in the matter would be noted with interest.

Sincerely, --Oden 12:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing my request for Admin assistence

Dionyseus, you blanked my request for Admin assistence to hide the fact that it is you helping Skinny McGee in making false edits to the Midnight Syndicate article. You have no right to blank a request. If you do so again I will report your actions to the board. GuardianZ 16:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not blank your request, you continue to deceive. Dionyseus 16:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a misunderstanding. The request was blanked by a bot, not a person. --BigDT 01:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

I am initiating an arbitration request on Midnight Syndicate. The formal request will be posted at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration shortly. You will be a named party in this dispute. Durova 03:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi. Thank you for voting in my RfA. Just to let you know that I have replied to the concerns you raised in your vote. Thanks again. Wikiwoohoo 18:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)