User talk:RandomHumanoid

'non-constructive' edits on :Image:Ireland.A2003004.jpg?

someone wrote "mmmm...mmmmm' or something like that under the image, so i removed it, because it seemed unnecessary. was mmm mmm an important piece of information? evidently it was, because you added it again. ...why?

I agree with him: it, simply, doesn't make sense, Jeffrey.Kleykamp 22:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry, I thought you had removed the image. --User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 23:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

---

VANDALISM

What's the vandalism in the comment I wrote for you. Seriously what's the problem. Instead of posting a warning on my page let me know what's the problem. Besides I might get banned from Wikipedia, but what's the piont? I just want to know what's the problem. Would you please let me know?

Hike for CCRAP

Hi... Where's the vandalism in Hike for CCRAP? It's kind of spammy, and there's definitely a potential WP:COI problem, but what's the basis for warning the user against vandalizing? --Rrburke^(talk) 00:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• The editor removed my {unencyclopedic} tag without any discussion on the talk page. --RandomHumanoid 00:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the editor also rewrote the article to respond to the tag, and may have removed the tag because he believed the rewrite solved the problems specified by the tag. It's preferable to WP:AGF. As well, an L3 warning is a little harsh, particularly for a new user. It's better to start with {{uw-delete1}}. --Rrburke^(talk) 00:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. The vandals are raising my initial response levels this evening. --RandomHumanoid 00:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. Goodnightmush^Talk 03:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but he's a returning vandal who's been warned before. And did you take a gander at his latest "contribution?" Why wait for his next one? --User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 03:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement flag on GTD?

I don't see it. How come? Discuss.

• Response on the linked page... --User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 17:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:King and Philosopher

If a blocked user left a userpage behind, you can just replace the page with {{indefblocked}}. There's no need to delete it. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 17:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: User pages

WP:USER is the controlling policy of user pages and user talk pages. Basically, as long as nothing is objectionable or disparaging or controversial, it doesn't usually follow under criteria for speedy deletion. While I realize that this user placed his fictitious bio in the main namespace, I was assuming good faith and I figured that if he moved it to his user page, that would be fine. Obviously the information is / was untrue, however, I usually view user pages with a lot of liberality as to their contents. In the future, unless the content of a user page is objectionable, controversial, or really nonsense (e.g., fkdsjkfljsd), I would suggest putting it on Miscellany for deletion; though that's just my suggestion and it's your call whether or not to tag a page for speedy deletion. I hope that clarifies the issue. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the details! --User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 20:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Cabbage soup diet

Is there perhaps a better way to handle this, maybe going through WP:AFD? In any case, I'm not sure if it was a template you used or what, but I find the tone of the message you left on my page to be unnecessarily condescending and insulting (especially using a "welcome" message on someone who's been a WP contributor for something like three years now). In the future, please find a different way of phrasing messages of this sort. Haikupoet 05:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmnn, I use Wikipedia:Twinkle to automate things. I'm not sure if it added that or I selected the template manually -- either is possible depending on circumstances. Sorry, it does seem condescending for an article with a long history. I actually thought the article was a joke as it sounded like something Roald Dahl would invent. My apologies for the template selection. I'm going to leave the article alone, as I've found to my great chagrin that this diet is real. So be it. Can't fight progress. --User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 12:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's all good, then. Yes, it's quite real -- my mother tried it out something like fifteen-twenty years ago. The article is a spam magnet though, and I'm finding out needs to be watched carefully. Haikupoet 15:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, my grandmother tried the Watermelon Diet many, many years ago. (Same idea, just substitute watermelons for cabbage soup.) I say blech to both. :) --User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 20:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Words in Malayalam

Actually, I've been thinking, I'll just delete the page because it is just a list basically and not an article. More like a dictionary from the words I wrote so you can delete it. (User:Pittoop) 07:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, you'll have to wait for an admin to delete the article... --User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 00:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Spam tag on RIMS

I mind it! I mind it so much I'm going to stomp my feet and hold my breath until I turn blue unless you put it back! :) Nah seriously, thanks it does seem rather spammy to me too. Wildthing61476 19:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh! :) --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 20:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

PHONE+ magazine and Xchange magazine

I posted a note at User talk:Dworford asking the original author of the articles Xchange magazine and PHONE+ magazine to supply references. I suspect that the two magazines are notable, but proving it may be difficult if the original author does not supply references. --Eastmain 23:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, they looked like pure spam to me for minor trade journals. If he can demonstrate otherwise, that'd be fine. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 23:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

UAA

Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Unfortunately your report has been removed due to the username not violating policy, or not being blatant enough for a block. Please remember you should only post blatant infringements on this page. Others should be discussed with the user in question first, using the {{UsernameConcern}} template. A request for comment can be filed if the user disagrees that their name is against the username policy, or has continued to edit after you have expressed your concern. Thank you.

Try AIV for spam stuff as well. Glad to see you're still around here by the way... always nice to see a familiar face! Jmlk17 08:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver Board of Trade Deletion

The new entry should be a lot better. Sorry, new at this. Thanks for the prompt feedback. --Denis Orellana 18:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Much better. Good work! --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The info is referenced now. --Denis Orellana 19:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This Is Hell

I was wondering if you would reconsider tagging the This is hell (radio) article for notability. The initial author calling it a podcast may have obscured the fact that it has been on air for ten years. Also, I feel the caliber of the guests is sufficient for notability. --Kommoner 00:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag. Thanks for cleaning up the article.  :) --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 00:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Much obliged. --Kommoner 00:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ellen Greene

Greetings, Random:

I'm simply in the process of attempting to improve the Ellen Greene entry. While specific cites are not pinned in place at present, the information is in fact identifiably sourced to the reliable external links given, viz ibdb and imdb. I'll attempt to worry away at it and improve it over time. It's already, I believe, better sourced than it was previously, simply by providing ibdb as an external link. AtomikWeasel 04:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• That's fine and I realize you're still working on it. That's why I added the {underconstruction} tag to the article. Happy editing! --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 04:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we're on a similar 'page,' then. I'll likely give it attention over time, here and there, and look to attempt to improve the entry appropriately. If anyone else happens along to contribute to the effort, so much the better. AtomikWeasel 05:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback. I'm not entirely facile at markup issues, but I'll continue to attempt to refine and improve the entry over time. It appears, from looking at your user page, that many of our perspectives with respect to Wikipedia are indeed similar. Again, thanks for the positive feedback. AtomikWeasel 18:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You deserve it!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		By far and away the most consistent and level-headed editor I have seen in regards to speedy deletion tags and articles. Helps me as an admin keep it the deleting work! Jmlk17 05:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you!!! :) --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 05:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

#!$^^$#!!!

it's obvious the article should just be redirected to an article that has a third party link (Nikolas Theodoros Plakadopoulos III or Theodoros Plakadopoulos) is the same person as (Nikolas Theodoros Plakadopoulos III or Nikos Plakas III) its just two different transmutations of the same name

• You are not allowed to remove AfD tags. There's nothing else to say about it. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 18:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The club link on that page isn't even the club's website it is a third party tourist site. is that vandalism?

• Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about and please sign your messages. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 18:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't know what i'm talking about? You ordered so many deletes in the last ten minutes that you can't remember? Club owner Nikos Plakas III I thought a third party site would about clubs instead of the actual clubs website would show the importance. For future reference what authority should I go to about the importance of clubs? Because there are a lot of subjects on wikipedia that only cite their own pages to prove their importance. User_talk:Haelstrom

• Your vandalism was to my talk page. Read the warning on your talk page. It clearly indicates what the warning was given for. You obviously didn't bother to read it before taking umbrage. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 19:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You said "There's nothing else to say about it." I disagreed. All I did was "have something else to say about it." Then you called shenanigans on me. User_talk:Haelstrom

• You need to read WP:CIVIL. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 19:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

7 Day Theory

That's not my article. But do what you have to do. I usually don't care about these horrible hip-hop related articles. My history clearly states: Improvements. And to look at these articles as explained in my most frequently written articles, I see a lot of lacking research in each article. I practically gave up on hip-hop anyways. But if you need support in the AFD, then I am for it. Thanks again. Keep up the good work. LILVOKA 06:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see -- you have moved it to "The Seven Day Theory" from the "7 Day Theory." That notice was inserted by WP:TW automatically to the "first" editor, which was technically you. I should have checked to insure it was sent to the actual creator. I'll go fix this now. Sorry for the bother! --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 14:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. LILVOKA 16:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Copy of posting on Haelstrom's page

Hi User:Haelstrom and thanks for your e-mail to me directly rather than on wiki. To clarify, I'm not an administrator on this project, or though I like to think I am a relatively seasoned editor. I will review your comments and the actions of User:RandomHumanoid and User:Nishkid64 if you wish, and certainly make a comment here. However I would say that your e-mail address incorporting "randomhumanoidsucks" is not a great start. Please remember WP:CIVIL is a policy that I presonally feel WP:IAR does not apply to. I wish you the best when your block ends, and will add a comment when I have reviewed the situation. I have copied this post to both the other editors for transparency. Pedro |  Chat  09:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Responded on User_talk:Haelstrom to centralize. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 14:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have also replied there. You will, of course, appreciate that your comment of "I'll guess he spammed a large number of editors/admins with his appeal. I think his record here speaks for itself." has been ignored by myself in the intrests of assuming good faith, reviewing the contributions directly, and not accepting on face value comments by any party, however "senior" or "established" they may be. That not withstanding, I found nothing by yourself or Nishkid64 that was, IMHO, wrong or out of line; you were both civil and pleasent as I would expect and the block was justified. Cheers. Pedro |  Chat  18:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Süleyman Başak

I said not keep, but weak keep, which --at least as I use it--informally means I wasn't going to defend the article further and I considered a delete as a reasonable opinion. The nom withdrew, based on my opinion, but that was his decision. I would have closed it as no consensus. It wasnt 53 total cites, it was 53 on those two papers alone. The total count was probably about 100. What also influenced me was the rep. of his current position, where he got the PhD, his associate editorships, and especially the excellent quality of the particular journal he published the two papers in. & I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to 3rd world. If he had not been 3rd world, or the journal had been of lower rep., I might have said Neutral or just Comment. DGG 17:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, your intended meaning of "Weak Keep" was not obvious to me. I know we are at opposite ends of the inclusion-deletion spectrum, but I do appreciate the amount of effort you frequently expend investigating notability. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 17:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually think of you as that extreme and hope you don't think that way of me. I know people who are more so in either case, and I share your intolerance for bad articles. I get my greatest satisfaction not from keeping something, but improving it enough so others want to keep it without my saying anything. But my feeling is there is so much unmitigated junk here that we should just pass over the borderline. DGG 01:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think getting rid of the borderline material makes the junk appear even more egregious, and therefore, more likely to disappear. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 03:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Apple (rabbi)

I have rewritten the article. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 07:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• I just cleaned it up a bit, but an autobiography from a rabbi makes me think of a baal gaiva.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 03:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Robert C. Beck

The Robert C. Beck article.

Was it the alternative medicine angle of the article or what exactly that made your decision to vote to delete it? Oldspammer 05:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't even know where to begin. The "U.S. Psychotronics Association?" "SuperLearning 2000?" "Mega Brain Power?"

I cannot comment from personal experience about brain stimulators or biofeedback devices, however, the brain has neurons.

The neurons are electro-chemical cells. It is not impossible that some form of electro-stimulation would have some kind of external influence on the brain?

I am not interested in brain stimulation anyway, but could research more into it if you want some validation of the concepts involved? Oldspammer 06:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• What kind of gibberish is this quote: One item that he did stress in a Google Video lecture was that the 'electrification treatment' had an amplifying effect on other medications and herbs taken by the patient, thereby multiplying by as much as 30 to 40 fold their effects. (Where precisely did he publish this brilliant insight?) IMHO, the article is utter nonsense and he is completely unnotable outside the lunatic fringe. Sorry, I call 'em like I see 'em. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 05:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I wrote some of the article text in my own words and used the phrase "amplifying effect" on my own to paraphrase what he was saying.

I have watched both of the referenced videos. Maybe you do not have the time or inclination to do so, or your internet connection is too slow for watching streaming videos?

I am not highly educated, so I may have misinterpreted what was explained, and gotten the words mixed up or something.

In his mid 70s Beck was quite eccentric. Some things that he said were wacky, but other things seemed to check out OK. I kept a patient, open mind through out the "ordeal" of the entire set of videos so that I would not dismiss this guy's message out of hand.

From what I can gather from the explanation about the "amplifying effect" is that absorption and transmission of blood nutrients augments only during current flow.

From my confused understanding of it, perhaps something physical happens concerning the blood cells, or about other components where cellular membranes have altered permeability or some such?

I may be wrong, but the term "electrophoration" was used in context with this phenomenon. When I used a free online dictionary, the closest word that I found was "electrophoresis." Some of the U.S. patent documents use the "electrophoration" word specifically when talking about filtering and toxins in the context of killing pathogens (AIDS) in donated blood for the purposes of keeping the donated blood supply risk-free for those requiring transfusions of such blood products. The two words undoubtedly have unrelated meanings? Oldspammer 06:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Carl Hewitt

Hi! During the recent AfD discussion about the article Carl Hewitt you expressed some concerns about the article, and suggested that it needed to be rewritten. I have undertaken a substantial rewrite of the article in an attempt to address the concerns raised by you and other editors, and would appreciate it if you could look over the current state of the article to see if you have any suggestions for further improvement. Thanks. --Allan McInnes (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Will do as soon as I have a chance. Thanks for your note! --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 16:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You take Wikipedia too seriously

It's not serious business.

• I'll give that comment all the consideration it's due. (By the way, have you checked out [1]? That may be more to your liking :) --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 15:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)