User talk:Deepfriedokra/20120823-20130831

Archives

• Talk archives for 2006 and 2007 and 2008 and 2009
• User talk archive December 2009 - March 7, 2010

Vandalism is futile Please understand that this userpage is frequently vandalized, and vandalism is reverted pretty quickly. You will not accomplish anything by vandalizing Wikipedia. If you wish to try test editing, you may do so in our sandbox located at Wikipedia:Sandbox or create a test subpage by putting "/test" after your username and clicking "create page." Thanks

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.

Attacks in <<REDACHTED PER blp>>

I was the one who posted the REDACHTED Page. I thinkn I was as factual as possible. I made no opinions on the page and stuck to the facts. I would hope Wiki would understand the seriousness as much as I do for this type of post. I understand what could happen if someone has the wrong information and how important being factual it is. Are there certain parts that are acceptable and certain parts that are not? Help me learn so we can get a factual and quality post on this subject.

Do you think that with positive information as well as what was posted that this would be an acceptable topic. Do you disagree that the subject matter does create notoriaty (sorry for spelling) —Preceding unsigned comment added by REDACHTED REDACHTED contribs) 01:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No. He does not meet notability requirements. He would be notable for one event only, if he were notable. This fails Wikipedia:BLP#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event. Dlohcierekim 01:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that is the first valid answer I have recieved. Understood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by REDACHTED] • contribs) 02:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Rfa

Well, now i need the huggle application to cheat and amass an absurd amount of edits in a short span of time. Texcarson (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I made 1,000 reversions a month for many months by hand. (There has been a bias against Huggle recently. I don't know which way that trend will go. I don't recommend Huggle for that reason.) If like me, you have a physical condition that makes typing difficult, you can always copy some of the vandal warnings fromWikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Multi-level_templates to text file and then use it to copy/paste warnings to vandal pages, tailoring them as needed. I use twinkle myself. It does not go so fast that I can't prevent mistakes and has a nice selection. I recommend avoiding animation until you have a clear understanding of the relevant policies and a reputation for having that understanding. My first animated tool was VandalProof. I had to apply for that and had already made thousands of reversions when I got it. Be sure to not neglect article building-- that is valued by the community. There are still many article that need improvement. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 18:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you trust Jimbo using the WMF credit card? Texcarson (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's his foundation, so I don't have to. Dlohcierekim 19:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And why contribute to the engine which gives him money, if he spends it so badly? Texcarson (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mikaey 2

Hello Dlohcierekim. Firstly, I'd like to say that I've avoided (until now) all Peter Damian-related issues, but don't agree with him getting to !vote or with his morals. But indenting other user's !votes without providing any reason should not be done, I know it's annoying, but his votes count for absolutely naught. Because they are votes, and RfA is a discussion. The candidate is ignoring it, I'd hope that !voters would follow the example of the user they hope will become an admin :D. Remember: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. That said, I'm definitely not going to edit war over this, or even remove your strike in the first place. Hopefully we can all just ignore Peter's comments (which the exception of the 'crats). Thanks - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not do it. I just fixed the indent! Dlohcierekim 21:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Doh. Message left for correct user. (I did spot that, but then I was looking at what you had done, and so went to the wrong place). Apologies - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No prob. Apparently I missed a discussion at WT:RFA. There is some concern that this may lead to more disruption. Oh Well. Dlohcierekim 21:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the heads up

Hi there and thanks for the heads up on the mistake I made. Also, I noticed that you also commented for User talk:98.21.130.13. Before I put the speedy deletion template, I noticed that it was this user who created it, User:67.82.60.241 not User:98.21.130.13, that's why I put it up and user 67.82.60.241 just added some nonsense to the user talk page. Just for future reference, should I just put up a welcome template and remove the nonsense if this kind of situation happens again where a different user creates someone else's user talk page and add nonsense? --Elockid (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Never be afraid to give a welcome template! I know, some users shriek about, "how can you welcome a vandal?" There are actually two templates for welcoming the underly constructive, so "yeah , I did." There's also a template for welcoming anon's.

But welcoming is not about being nice primarily. It is an opportunity to let a new user know about the expectations held by the community. Can we honestly say, "I'm blocking you for not going by the rules," when we've not made sure they had links to the rules? Where welcoming is pretty inappropriate, for attack pages, I use a template that explains in no uncertain terms how I feel about such and includes links and admonishments to the appropriate rules.

If an anon has no prior warnings, I use {{{template:anon}}} unless it involves so egregious an edit as to eliminate WP:AGF. Even if it was a dumb, totally wrong, probably vandalistic edit, I try to WP:AGF the first time, 'cause ultimately I have the power to block them, and will cheerfully do so if they wear out my AGF. Hope that helps. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It really helped. Thanks a lot for the info! Elockid (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hans College

Yeahh, I guess. I wasn't convinced it was a real college... Pretzels^Talk! 14:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Deepfriedokra. You have new messages at Hell in a Bucket's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello there

After trying many times to get someone that knows what they are doing to help me I tried to add to the list of political parties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_Kingdom both the changes I tried to make have been expunged, one by you.

I do not understand how to edit Wikipedia and I do not have time to learn. Not only that but the more I go into it the less it looks as though it is trying to ‘put the sum total of human knowledge on the internet’ which I understand was its original intention and when I speak to people about new knowledge (and I am talking about brute facts here) there are millions of people just ready to pounce on it because it is ‘not notable’ I will return to that point later.

These are the brute facts. I have created a new political party. It is registered with the electoral commission http://registers.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm?frmGB=1&frmPartyID=893&frmType=partydetail it is active http://www.thestraightchoice.org/leaflet.php?q=423 and www.bestofabadbunch.org.uk and most of what it does is not internet based.

The list of political parties in the UK in Wikipedia is incomplete. I have tried to complete it and rather than anyone actually trying to help they (you) have simply expunged the entry I tried to make. Two different people removed the two attempted entries and to Dlohcierekim’s credit at least he left a message. It is obviously far easier to tear something down than build it up. Rather than being destructive could I ask that someone updates the page in question because as I have said, I am not a programmer and do not have the time to learn all this stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andylear (talk • contribs) 08:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

RFA

I was just poking fun at you: I know that the actual requirements are absurd and at this point the editors who pass the election would be candidates for an asylum. Texcarson (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)