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

THIS USER WELCOMES THANKSPAM

Contacting me and the Messages

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

If you have a question about a deleted article, please leave a message by CLICKING HERE.

You can also appeal a deletion by clicking this link to Deletion Review and following the directions found there.

Happy New Year!

Dear Dlohcierekim,

Wishing you a happy a new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 20:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lorrenzo Wade

Re: you message on the Lorrenzo Wade talk page ...

Google News hits don't define notability. There are countless news articles about sports teams that identify members of the teams, even if they don't play in the game. That's just the way sports are reported. To define notability in sports, one needs several significant events, not just that a player played the sport. There are several discussions about WP:ATHLETE and sports notability at Wikipedia talk:Notability (athletes). Feel free to participate. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD of Erin McCarley

An article that you have been involved in editing, Erin McCarley, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin McCarley. Thank you. CyberGhostface (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse J. McCrary, Jr.

Already in the Category:Secretaries of State of Florida subcategory. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Sorry I don't understand. If I try and revert a blanking by a page author, huggle will tell me to tag it for speedy deletion instead. Huggle did not so you must be mistaken. If I am wrong, please accept my apologies. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 23:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I think I understand. There was already a {{db-self}} template on the page, so when I reverted it went back to the version with the speedy deletion tag. Normally Huggle will ask if you want to add a deletion tag if the author blanked the page. You might know more about Huggle than me- it's not what usually happens. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 23:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Must be a flaw with Huggle. WP:CSD#G7 allows for the creator to blank the page. It would not be appropriate to revert, with or without Huggle. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 23:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re your attempted edits to ollies talk page Dlohcierekim, {{tl|db-self}} works best, it gives {{db-self}}--Jac16888 (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive Critisism

I wish to bring to note the fact that you were involved in the deletion of a perfectly valid new article without giving any real reason. I would like to stress my feelings in a most polite but firm manner in saying that I strongly believe this was a welcome contribution. I will be expecting to see the return of the article entitled "Daffid's Epic Chin" and leave this duty in your hands as I feel I should not have to take care of this matter myself after spending my time in creating the informative article which I believe would have been in the interest of many readers. I would say to you that because of you, Wikipedia, as a whole, will be missing out on some vital and thought provoking information. Once again, I expect to see my article return in the very near future,

Yours Faithfully, Chegman (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have left Mr. Chegman a note on civility. And the "article" was obviously vandalism. — Satori Son 21:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologise to both Dlohcierekim and Satori Son for one particular line that I seem to have used in my original post. I may have been slightly annoyed by the unprompted deletion of the aforementioned article. I most definitely did not intend this as an attack as I was in the middle of changing the main offending line when I received the message from Satori Son. However, in sticking with the theme of my original post, I still believe that there was no sufficient explanation for the deletion of my article. I spent a considerable amount of time in composing that article, which, frankly, if I had known this would be the outcome I would have spent in doing something else which may have been appreciated. I also strongly protest to the fact that it has been dubbed as "Vandalism." I find this extremely hurtful as I wrote the article with the best of intentions to contribute towards this magnificent and ever-growing website, and having it, metaphorically speaking, "tossed aside" is rather upsetting. The statement in which I stated that I expect to see the return of the article still applies and I still leave this in your hands, which I am sure will prove entirely capable.

Yours Faithfully Chegman (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reply. Dloh cierekim 23:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Ugliano restored

actually, not an attack page. Actually a fictional character. Dloh cierekim 02:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right, in that case I'm going to hide behind A1, not enough context to figure out the subject. Thanks for the undelete and fixup anyway. --fvw * 02:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

relevance of the marines article to James Zoll

In the article James Zoll, the cited page (www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005smallarms/agenda.pdf) was proving that he was in fact in the US army, and he was the chairman of the conference for military Weapons and Ammunition.

As for information on his musical career, I was about to edit that in when but it was deleted http://drzoll.webs.com/—Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyninjas (talk • contribs)

Castle Hotel, Halton

Saved; thanks for your speedy support. It sounds as if Runcorn has about the same population as Largo! If you want info about the grading system of our listed buildings it is included in Listed buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire which is currently a FLC. Or even more info from English Heritage. Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your are welcome. It was my pleasure. And thanks for the links. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 16:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool tools

See: User talk:Inclusionist#Cool Tools travb (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not confirmed on Danielle Fountain

I have to politely disagree with your call on changing the Speedy Delete on Danielle Fountain to a prod, based on your claim that there is an assertion of notability because of the article's claim that Ms. Fountain and her bandmates registered "over 3 million hits" on YouTube for their version of a song "Luv Addict" and "Decode." I just went to YouTube and ran checks to see these videos. These were the messages I received:

No videos found for “fufu luv addict”

No videos found for “fufu decode”

In view of this, it appears the original Speedy Delete request was justified and that assertion of notability is nonexistent. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS It appears this may be a hoax, as a Google search of Danielle Fountain and Fufu turns up absolutely nothing: [1]. In fact, nothing asserted about Danielle Fountain can be confirmed online. Something odd is afoot. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PPS I have removed the prod tag and put up a G3. In view of the research I've done, I am convinced this is a blatant hoax. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. The interpretation of significance and notability is often subjective -- I saw the claims in the original text to be highly dubious, which is why I went for A7 rather than a prod. However, in digging deeper, I realised this article was a phony. I am glad that we were able to work together and have this taken off the site. As always, it is a pleasure to work with you. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

link to part on Eco's talk page. Dloh cierekim 20:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoleetage (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Eight Days To Live

I'm a moron. I thought I had checked and found it to be the first entry, which was why I was marking it for deletion. In any case, thanks! ~ Parasane (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I've deleted articles that same way. We are not perfect. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 20:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 5.999... approaches, but does not equal 6

Hmm, I was a bit confused at that.

On a side note, that radar animation of Barry 07 on your userpage caught my eye. :) –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it wasn't exactly a powerhouse storm, but we got a bit of rain from it here in New York. It was fun to track, at least. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers

I see we are both members of the 30,000 edits high club! Interesting to see my 2006 comments on RfA here. Fortunately they still make sense to me... Ty 00:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look into my eyes, not around the eyes, into my eyes ...

One day you'll realise that I'm almost always right,[2] and then everything will fall into place. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

No. Quite the contrary, in fact. We don't create derivative works from copyright violations, which is what editorially revising them does. The very good reason that {{copyvio}} points to a new page, where an article is started from scratch, is that the replacement that we create must not be derived from the copyrighted work, because otherwise it would be just as much a violation of copyright. This is also the very good reason that we have to lose all later edits when reverting past a copyright violation to a prior non-infringing version. One should not editorially revise a copyright violation, including editing it to re-word it. It should be removed, either by reversion to a non-infringing version or deletion, and fresh content written from scratch. Uncle G (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not derivative if I say it in my own words. Which I did. My dad was a hairdresser. Ya gotta know these things, when your dad does hair for a living. Nothing remarkable about this info. Any hairdresser could tell you. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 04:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Ya'alon quotation

==Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Ya'alon quotation

Would you be willing to vote to merge into the Moshe Ya'alon article?Historicist (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HI!

I saw you edited the article on John Stansel Taylor, and I thought that was awesome, since John S. Taylor is my great grandfather :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.0.95 (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hate

Although we've had our differences, there is no hate. :) — Realist² 01:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment from user unhappy with speedy deltion

moved by me to bottom of page

I also would like to protest a claim made by you on 15JAN2009 on article the Lupopotumus. I have a copy of the article, and it was definately perfectly coherent. Do YOU live in Sodus NY. Do YOU know about the local lupopotumus legend. DO YOU LIVE IN FEAR OF GOING TO THE SUPERMARKET? WE DO. Deleting this article was an abomination, especially for the reasons you gave. As you can see from this message, I clearly have the ability to write coherently. Don't edit things you know nothing about.

On reviewing this, I stand by my deletion. Looks like BS at best, vandalism at worst. In the article, you give an obnoxious psuedo Linnaean classification. Of course, there are no reliable sources for this. The article name looks like a portmanteau of someone's name and "hippopotomus," thus I suspect this is a thinly veiled Attack page. The sum of the content, in light of all else, makes me feel deleting this as nonsense rather than as vandalism or an attack page was fairly generous and open-minded. If you believe that this page does in fact serve as an Encyclopedia article, that the subject not only exists, but has WP:reliable sources with verifiable information then I suggest you appeal at deletion review. Bear in mind that this looks like an attempt insult, denigrate, harass or humiliate a living person. Wikipedia has no tolerance for such. Cheers, and happy editing. Dloh cierekim 17:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm writing this to let you know that this artical was created as a part of a media studies project on wikipedia. I was doing research on vandalism, spamming, etc, and wikipedia's deletion policy. I hope there are no hard feelings, and I don't plan on trying this again. Just know that in dealing with this study in the way you did, you have seriously helped wikipedia's cause (at least in my paper). The article was meant to do no harm to anyone, just to get a real look at the inner workings of wikipedia. I do have one last question. How did you find the article? You probably didn't type Lupopotomus into the search bar. As an administrator, are you given a list of new pages to check, or do you all just check random ones. I read somewhere on your page that you were employed, and the article in question was made around noon, and erased around ten minutes after. What im really asking is weather or not their is a system for having admins check new articles, or ones that look suspicious. Thanks, and many apologies for sorta wasting your time, tikitrav — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikitrav (talk • contribs)

Icat59's block

I left Icat59 (talk · contribs) a message. If he requests unblocking and seems sincere and demonstrates he knows the rules and intends to follow them, please consider unblocking him. I don't know this guy but I do know sometimes people at his stage in life jump into a project not realizing it's not a playground, but once they do realize it's an active worksite and that their input is valued, they take it seriously. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. There's a conditional/probationary unblock path to follow, where the user selects an article to improve and works on it on there userpage to show they are redeemable. Blocks are only to protect the project, and he seemed to be making unconstructive edits at a high rate. If he shows he can constructively edit, the he neds an unblock. Cheers, and thanks for the note. Dloh cierekim 03:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kanonkas

Thank you Dlohcierekimfor voting in my successfully closed RfA! I'm glad that you trust me. Ping me if you need anything! Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 19:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

You should be using the discussion page before deleting pages, "hang on" tags were used but ignored. Please submit on the talk page next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.255.16 (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. The use of a hangon tag does not necessarily preclude deletion. If you disagree with the deletion, you put your reason on the article talk. If it meets WP:CSD, it meets WP:CSD. What article do you have in mind. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 01:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason was given on the discussion page for the deletion despite the hang on tags being there. Next time, please submit a reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.255.16 (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. You might want to brush up on the policies related to speedy deletion. No reason need be given on the talk page. If you have a particular page in mind, I will be happy to review the deletion. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 03:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also, you can ign your posts by placing four ~'s at the end. Dloh cierekim 03:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Nicolaides

I thought it certainly notable, it was a lead item. But the original text had not yet surfaced. It was pretty clear that it would pretty soon enough though. Suspect that you may see some edit wars on that one. The pro-monarchy faction does not like to hear criticism of their pet dictator. -- Gorgonzilla (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Deepfriedokra/20120823-20130831

Archives