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

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

Previous discussions:

=

"Stince" is not Stinson

Yeah, my friend started that user name and got a nasty message from someone assuming he was the actual Stinson. Sorry about that. We are just a bunch of College Republicans trying to get some information out on him. There should be media coverage monday I'm guessing so I'll wait until then. We also got emails from his staff asking us to "please stop making wikipedia articles on Jeff Stinson as it defeats the integrity of our initiative." Oops, I guess we didn't realize we were making him look bad.--Mannysims 16:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaner fish

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

Looking to create article about possible political candidate

Hi there, I am trying to create an article about Jeff Stinson who may run for Governor of Massachusetts. It looks like some people tried earlier but it was deleted because they didn't have sources. I have sources and have done research. Can I proceed? This was just announced today so a bunch of people may be trying bogus articles, but you can verify my sources.--Mannysims 05:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jake ihn deletion

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

Speedy Delete Speedily Re-Created

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

Deleted page

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

DragonflySixtyseven has not answered me

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

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

Page Deleted Without Due Process

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

Did you know

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

--Allen3 ^talk 00:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind

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

Bad virus

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

Hamroll3 block

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

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

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

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

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

Marquetect

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

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

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

DYK

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

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

Block of User:Zomgaaron

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

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

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

Reply about sources

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

Your message regarding process

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

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

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

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

Hey

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

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

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

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

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

Re: For future reference

Hey,

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

Your block of Wikitarded

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

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

DeathNomad

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

Hoax

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

Valtio deletion

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

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

Reply

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

Jane Farrow

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

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

Farrow is openly lesbian.^[1]

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

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

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

Move of University presidents

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

Harold Brighouse

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

Insectathopter

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

is not a hoax...

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

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

SieBot

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

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

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

Beta carbon nitride

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

Re:

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

I think there is a problem, see this [1]. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 00:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

DRV Notice

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

It could have been worse

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

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

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

Hello

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

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

Deletion of InfoPrint Solutions Company

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

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

Gordon McVie

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

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

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

Still

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

Sorry

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

Reply

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

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

Why did you delete reshitting?

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

Joey Shabadoo

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

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

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

Ricky Di Ossi

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

Brown Bamford

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

Thanks!

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

DRV Notice

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

You are making a mistake by blocking Swanzsteve

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

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

See also "a major coincidence!", miraculously but also rather transparently happening after my comment. Sheesh :-) - DVdm 17:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dingle

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

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

I'm not going to edit your page, but this is a sock of the indef blocked sockpuppeteer, whom apparently is still sore that I blocked one of his accounts for WP:3RR (which apparently I'm notorious for?). You can delete this per WP:BAN, or not as it suits you.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to point out that the reverting is being done by a anti-Dingle (possible) sockpuppet Denveron. Whilst I agree it is fair to block someone who STARTS reverting, it is hardly fair to block the other person, (who has painstakingly sourced some quote, only to find it has been reverted by some nutcase) when they revert it back. - Swanzsteve 13:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent blocks

Hello. Triggered by an unblock request at User talk:NZUlysses, I have noticed that your recent blocks have block rationales such as "user hates Wikipedia", "being a jerk", "User is idiot", "not a useful contributor" and "overdue for block". If I may, I would strongly urge you to consider using block rationales that are more detailed (such as the default rationales offered by the interface, where applicable), and that are not needlessly offensive. Otherwise, such blocks will much more likely be overturned as arbitrary if they are challenged. Thank you for your consideration. Sandstein 08:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread

Just a head's up that there is a new thread about your blocks arising from the Dingle article, at the bottom of WP:AN. The editor who posted it didn't notify you so I thought someone should. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sixstring1965

Amazing how quickly some people garner the attention of so many. He may be pissed, but I bet there's 6 or seven people watching his page now... Nice sig, btw. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 21:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax tag

Lack of sources. SolidPlaid 21:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

electro

I was going to see if I could have it transwikied to Wikitonary... ViperSnake151 12:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denveron Vandalising Herbert Dingle again

DS - last I heard from you was we were not allowed to edit Dingle's page until further notice. I have looked today and Denveron is back reverting my quote from Nature again, he has started back exactly where he left off. ---Swanzsteve 13:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed on the talk page, including by a previously uninvolved editor (Wikidemo) who has stated he is reluctant to edit due to the potential to be unfairly blocked. Consensus is to remove the quote. Swanzsteve's ongoing namecalling and out-of-consensus editing needs to be addressed. Tim Shuba 13:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked both for 1 week strictly on behavior. I considered going longer to allow some sort of consensus building exercise to happen at the talkpage (probably an RFC) without those two derailing it. IMO, a consensus shouldn't be at all hard to achieve there.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel^(Talk) 19:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Williams (journalist)

Why did you delete the AFD? The article, yes, but the AFD discussion, too? I thought they were supposed to be archived. Jauerback 13:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to close it, too. Jauerback 20:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Walter Bread

Thank you for your message :) And congrats for your successful RfA! Were you about to delete the article, came across it in recent changes or just randomly noticed? Thanks again, Tiddly-Tom 15:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Coool :P See yah around! Tiddly-Tom 16:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New relationship energy

The closing of this article is very strange to me. Only one person suggested redirecting to honeymoon period. Also, I find no sources that say "new relationship energy" is the same as "honeymoon period". This might seem obvious to us, but if we are going to follow our own rules about original research and knowledge synthesis, I'd like to see some sources before we start redirecting entire articles to stubs. Honeymoon period is three sentences long and has no sources. New relationship energy, by contrast, has around 6 paragraphs and several sources. It needs work, yes, but I see no reason to redirect to honeymoon period. Thoughts? --Fang Aili ^talk 01:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lehman Brothers logo (2007).jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lehman Brothers logo (2007).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page Creations

Page Creations: Writers/Producers

Deborah Joy Levine (American writer and producer on Any Day Now, Dawson's Creek, Early Edition, Class Actions, The Division, Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, Beautiful People, Courthouse, Strong Medicine) [2]
Randall Caldwell [3]
Anna Fricke: American TV writer and producer on Dawson's Creek, Everwood, Men In Trees, The Trap, Touching Evil [4]
David Cherrill (ex-Head Writer of Search For Tomorrow)
Jean Arley: American TV producer of Where The Heart Is & One Life To Live [5]; [6]
Betty Rothenberg: American TV director of Y&R from 1984-2002. Nominated for 17 Daytime Emmys and won 7 times. Winner of a DGA Award. [7]; [8]
Maxine Levinson (American TV producer & TV executive) (ex EP of OLTL, ex-VP of ABC Daytime) [9], [10], [11]
Dave vonKleist More than 21,000 hits on Yahoo
David Hiltbrand [12]
Burton Armus (Emmy nominated writer-NYPD Blue) [13]
David Schulner: American TV writer/producer on Desperate Housewives, Miss Match, Tell Me You Love Me, Everwood, The Oaks, Once And Again, What About Brian, MDs

Sockpuppetry of the author of Unsigh

I have opened a sockpuppetry case against the author of Unsigh, which has been SD'd 5 times already today. If you have any more names to add to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Arkelna, please add them to the list. Thank you. --Blanchardb 21:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Lest We Forget. Remember the sacrifice.} 18:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowolfd4

OK, maybe I didn't use the best dropdown template, but I did explain my reasons in the block log. FYI calling this guy "It is obvious that you are a genuine participant in the project" is not totally accurate. He's the most disruptive and abusive editor in the group. His removing community accepted dispute resolution tags twice, etc is clear disruptive vandalism. Did you look at his block log? Hardly new behavior for him. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to wheel war, but I'm not sure you have a full grasp of the background here. I know that, my point is my picking vandal only vice vanalism by mistake does not warrant unblocking in this case. Yes, he is a user, but he has been warned and blocked multiple times and still does not get it. His disuption can not be allowed to unseat the community effort to make the Sri Lanka peace effort on wiki come undo. All the other Sri Lanka editors are at least trying to cooperate on the he peace effort. If this effort fails, the Sri Lanka case will go to Arbcom, like Digwuren and the East Europe articles. This was all worked out in standard dispute resolution process, see the WP:SLR pages and the links in the tags at the top of many of the Sri Lanka articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you have been dragged into this, do you want to participate in the SLR project. For once we have peace to contribute without aggresive incivility, stalking, personal attacks (all deployed as a strategy to keep wikipedians at bay) facing us on a daily basis. We need more admins to participate to make it effective. Thanks Taprobanus 19:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vinth

Thanks for the note. I see that editor's other article, Kitten wind is also gone. Did anyone decode that one? I got as far as walking alone, willows, desert, blue mountains, etc., but never got to the specific source... Mdbrownmsw 19:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thanks for leaving me a message on my talk page and help me clean my articles up. As far as I know, Song Zhenzhong is known as the youngest martyr of the republic in China, and most Chinese know him. but I realy don't know he is not famous in the world.--Peng Peng 15:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the more information I k,ow I cannot translate them into English clearly .By the way, It's 23:00 I wiil take a rest.in our time.So if you leave me messgae, I may be unable to answer you in time.Sorry for that. --Peng Peng 15:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Click there to open your card! → → →

A friend of yours? :)

Dee areae geeoh en eff ell why Ess eye extee why essee vee-ee en (talk · contribs) —Wknight94 (talk) 04:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Thompson (American Writer) was not a hoax. Please restore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.73.49 (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Christian

Hi, you just deleted a page I was editing (I'm ASCWiki). I'm new to creating my own pages on wikipedia so I was wondering why the page got deleted. The page is an assessment of a recently written paper that I'm doing for a research project, its kind of inconvenient if it gets deleted.

Can you tell me what the reason was so I can fix it up and get back to work?

Cheers

ASCWiki 23:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I've learnt about the policy on original research now. However this isn't original research, its an objective assessment of an important paper thats been written that throws doubt on Bell's theorem. While it hasn't been published yet, the preprint has caused significant controversy and the discussion was covered in an article in Nature last month, (see the references on the deleted page). Every fact was referenced, although I hadn't actually made them into footnotes yet.

Also, I am not actually sure how you respond to these. As in, I don't know where to go to look for a reply. DO you just edit this page or do you add a comment?

ASCWiki —Preceding comment was added at 00:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just got your comment, thanks for the speedy response. The article is intended to be about the paper not Christian himself.

You're correct, the article hasn't been published yet. It has however, been considered worthy of an article in Nature http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v3/n10/full/nphys731.html which should give it enough creedence to be noteworthy.

Just to clarify, he hasn't actually claimed to disprove Bell's theorem in the technical sense, he just believes that its premises are unduly restrictive in requiring hidden variables to belong to a scalar algebra.

Again, I and the other people working on this are being assessed on the article. Obviously if it is never going to be suitable for wikipedia we'll have to change that now, but after the amount of research that's gone into it we'd appreciate being able to put it into the public realm as originally intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASCWiki (talk • contribs) 00:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the content of the Nature article in case you can't view it. From Nature 3, Cotober 2007:

It’s widely accepted that quantum theory, combined with experiments that verify its predictions, implies that any ‘hidden variable’ theory that would account for quantum processes in a more realistic way (that is, with physical properties existing before they’re measured) must involve non-local, fasterthan- light connections. This is the consequence of John Bell’s celebrated theorem, and the basis for a small industry in contemporary physics. Recent experiments have gone further, even ruling out some nonlocal theories (S. Gröblacher et al. Nature 446, 871–875; 2007); those clinging to a belief in reality seem stuck with non-locality of a disturbing kind (such as in the bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics). But what of the assumptions in Bell’s theorem? What if Bell’s argument were wrong? In a paper guaranteed to be contentious, Joy Christian has suggested as much (http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/ 0703179). A paper entitled “Disproof of Bell’s Theorem” has to be greeted with scepticism, yet the argument is so unusual, and elegant, as to warrant serious consideration. Bell’s argument was that a set of hidden variables, λ, would determine the outcomes of measurements of pairs of entangled variables, say spins, located in spacelike separated regions. Bell worked out the correlations between such measurements that could follow from classical physics and found a result in conflict with quantum theory. Because experiments have since verified the predictions, Bell’s theorem implies the impossibility of local hidden variable theories. But Christian argues that Bell made an important assumption in taking the variables λ to be real numbers. Mathematically speaking, this means they’re elements of a ‘scalar’ algebra, in which multiplication is commutative; but is there any reason, in principle, that real hidden variables would have to belong to this particular algebra? The algebra most natural for representing rotations in 3D space is the Clifford algebra, of which William Rowan Hamilton’s quaternions form a sub-algebra. Rotations, of course, do not in general commute, and the Clifford algebra respects this fact; it also reflects how it takes a rotation of 720°, rather than 360°, to bring an object back into its original orientation. (This weird effect occurs for fermions within quantum theory, but it’s actually a peculiarity of rotations in 3D space, not a quantum phenomenon). Taking Bell’s λ to be elements of a Clifford algebra, Christian shows how the argument runs differently. Originally, the values of a particle’s spin, measured along different directions, were assumed to commute with one other. Not so for Clifford-algebra-valued functions. As a result, Christian apparently demonstrates, the correlations allowed in a local realistic theory are identical to those of quantum theory. Not surprisingly, this argument has been strongly criticized (arxiv:0707.2223). Christian has made equally strong rebuttals (arxiv:quant-ph/0703244), and the argument is likely to rage for some time, given the immense consequences. If he’s right, then nothing in the quantum formalism, or in any experiments, implies the impossibility of finding hidden variables that might explain quantum processes in a realistic, even classical way. Einstein might have been talking sense all along.

Mark Buchanan

ASCWiki —Preceding comment was added at 00:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as there seems to be a consensus that wikipedia isn't the right format for this I'll have to resign myself to working something else out. I appreciate the time you put into investigating it.

ASCWiki —Preceding comment was added at 00:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DS, thanks for getting in touch with me regarding theaccountprogram. I read the COI page and as the creator of the program, I think I maintained a neutral tone. Also, this is not spam - the program really is free and well written. (I've got a MS in CS, and have been a network admin at UMaine for over 15 years.) I think a lot of people could benefit from using it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theaccountprogram (talk • contribs) 14:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it Movin'(2008 film)

Saw that you speedied this thing. We'll see if it stays that way. It's some kind of persistent hoax ... people keep deleting films out of the Keke Palmer article and putting this one in its place. I can't find any source for it, reliable or not. If it keeps up, a little bit of salt may be required.Kww (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 17 November, 2007, a fact from the article Mercury(IV) fluoride, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nomination! --Itub (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Sadi Carnot is banned for one year, and the remaining parties are encouraged to "move forward from this unfortunate incident with a spirit of mutual understanding and forgiveness". For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 12:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TARMOGEN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirk christoffersen (talk • contribs) 20:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Dear Dragonfly, it appears you arbitrarily deleted a page I created called "tarmogen" without cause or reason. these are a new class of pharmaceutcal that has been published on in numerous prestigious scientific journals such as cancer research and nature medicine. please explaing your actions.[reply]

"Patrolled"?

2007-11-20T11:07:21 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs | block) marked Antigny-la-Ville patrolled

We can patrol articles now?! :-) Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 03:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 20 November, 2007, a fact from the article Ernest Wild, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 08:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1932 armed uprising

Why did you move it? My understanding is that Wikipedia does not allow neologisms. 1932 armed uprising is a translation of the Mongolian term, and has also been used implicitely in english literature: [14]. Yaan (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:PacManCrt260007052004.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PacManCrt260007052004.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Please explain to me how it is appropriate for an admin to replace a editor's hook on the main page with his own (without suggesting it) and not give credit to that editor for the hook?--S TX 01:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not understand, Look at my talk page archives. I nominated hooks about the presidential campaign of Duncan Hunter and Straw polls for the presidential election which were featured on the main page. I should be given credit for this hook since it was on the main page and it should archived. I think its great that you replaced my well-written, well sourced article with your stub.--S TX 01:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that replacing the article with one of his own was just an oversight here. Three was some genuine concern that the reference to a presidential campaign could be construed as a lack of neutrality. This should be discussed in more detail at the village pump, so we know what in the future what to do. In this case, it was just a quick reaction to change the DYK. I think it's reasonable for your DYK to be added to the archive, which is much less prominent; you can take credit for it. But until the matter is resolved one way or another, it would probably be best not to nominate election-related articles for main page status. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your error

Are you going to fix your mistake or will somebody else have to?--S TX 02:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions!

All I want is an explanation for why you deleted my page, no further questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kafeirulz (talk • contribs) 15:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why didi you delete my page of Petey Paranha

I worked hard on that article and I was still modifying that article. What was wrong with it? It had reliable recources, external links, and wiki links. Frank polizzi (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Friends'

Dragon Friends' is not fanfic, it's an unpublished book --Jay (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean 'not yet notable' --Jay (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:jaytur1/Anime User talk:jaytur1/Anime

Can you delete 2 of MY sub-pages? User:jaytur1/Anime,User talk:jaytur1/Anime —Preceding comment was added at 16:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Thank you --Jay Turner 16:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

	Dear DragonflySixtyseven, Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Words nor pictures can express my heartfelt appreciation at the confidence the community has shown me. I am both heartened and humbled by this confidence. I will carry the lessons learned from the constructive criticism I have received with me as I edit Wikipedia, and heed those lessons. Special thanks to Pedro and Henrik as nominators. Special thanks to Rudget who wanted to. A very special thanks to Moonriddengirl for her eloquence and perceptiveness. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for restoring Peter Stickles. I'm just stunned that the word of an anonymous vandal was given that sort of weight by anyone. Otto4711 00:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KKK

You welcomed me to Wikipedia when I first ventured to register and start working. I've found it fascinating and worthwhile, mostly.

I did hours of work editing the KKK article in Oct. and Nov., mostly trying to tighten it up, plus add more substance to the growth of the second Klan, with sources. I've just discovered that all my changes were reverted by Alabamaboy, who claimed that since it was a Feature Article, I was supposed to have sought consensus for any changes. He also said some of my edits were POV, but deleted them rather than simply noting a request for citations. The TalkPage for the article does not identify any constraints because of Featured Article status, and in fact invites editors to improve it (or any article). It appears these editors are very attached to their own views, rather than being able to disagree or comment on the substantive changes I made. I am disappointed, to put it mildly. The article has way too much on the film Birth of a Nation and the trial of Leo Frank, for both of which there are separate articles, plus it projects too much influence to President Wilson's comments, with almost nothing (except what I've added or tried to add) about substantive social changes from 1910-1930.--Parkwells 19:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DS, I know he means well.--Parkwells (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION

Hi there, i wrote an article called "kisg" about a series of videos located on youtube. you deleted it. this was a long time ago but it has only now come to my attention. i only ask why you deleted it. it was ligit and important so i ask you, WHY DID YOU DELETE MY ARTICLE ON KISG?? please answer me, i only want a reason. thanks

^ something

[sept29show-1] something

[1]