From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A Request For A Little Help[edit]

Hi there. Noticed that you are an administrator and a participant on the Wikiproject for Heavy Metal. Hoping you might be able to help me with something. I recently made a substantial change on the Folk Metal page, only for someone to revert my changes because I had removed a section on something called Vedic Metal. The same person who revert my changes was also the same person who added the Vedic Metal stuff onto the Folk Metal page in the first place. Personally, I think it is one of those nonsense that should be immediately deleted but that will probably result in a revert war and I'm not interested in that. What I'm wondering is whether you know whether it is possible to nominate just a section of an article for deletion (as opposed to the entire article itself) and if so how would I go about it? I've been looking all over wikipedia for an answer but have not been able to find any. For the record, Vedic Metal has already been successfully nominated for deletion as an article. I'm just looking for a way now to get it off the folk metal page where it simply does not belong for reasons that I've explained on the talk page there. Thanks. --Anarchodin 20:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Pete Holly[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Pete Holly, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Holly (3rd nomination). Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

-- Malber (talkcontribs) 14:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request[edit]

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 21:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your fair and succinct decision regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie McLean. Yours, Smeelgova 23:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

indescriminant collection of information[edit]

I followed proper editing. It says if you see something that needs to be corrected be bold and go ahead (unilaterally) and do so. Every article on editing says so from the introduction on. I also put this response on my talk page in response to your comment there using the big word unilaterally, which I looked up. I am not watching your talk page. --Chuck Marean 16:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


I have no idea why that factually correct addition to the Online Counseling page was deleted. Admittedly I'm a new user, but it seemed a bit harsh. The original author would agree with me, as he's a colleague.

VCL (Vixen Controlled Library) > oh my god[edit]

How the hell did that survive an AfD??? WHO THE FUCK ARE THESE PEOPLE??? DesertSky85451

Oh fuck, I just made the mistake of reading more about this. Now I want to buy a gun. I'm very very scared. DesertSky85451

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter (second nomination)[edit]

First, I am somewhat against relisting in a separate place, since a fair bit of discussion has taken place since the re-edit and that will become difficult to read in a new place - I think it should either be relisted in the same place (but that discussion just added to today's AfD list), so more discussion in that, or just closed as a Keep, since it's pretty clear the objections have been addressed. But I guess that's a judgement call (I'm especially biased on the "objections have been addressed" bit :-) ), and you are an experienced admin.

But in any case, if you do want to relist it in a separate place, you absolutely need to close the first discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter, and mark it with a prominent link to the second, otherwise it's effectively being discussed in two separate pages at once. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Notice on afd[edit]

I wasn't sure what the procedure on that was; I thought that was also used if a user had messaged/notified many people to go review an AfD. I noticed that users had left a message about it on one talk page I had on my watchlist, and noticed from his contributions he had notified many people. Wasn't sure if that was right or not (the notice I placed). I guess not, no problem. · XP · 22:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It actually is a problem. MD didn't notify everyone who stated an opinion on the page, which would have been a useful service. He just notified the ones who had "voted" the way he wanted. That's not nice, and against AfD policy. AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
As I noted on XP's talk page, that is covered within canvassing / votestacking at WP:SPAM, rather than the afdanons / afdnewbies template. Deizio talk 00:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No consensus?[edit]

How is it that a 79% delete consensus is no consensus? Morton devonshire 23:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Morton, thanks for getting in touch. As the closing admin I took into account the substantial rewrite of the article, the rationales of those who had expressed opinions, and when they had expressed them. As the AfD was 5 days old yet the debate had largely focussed on a very different version of the article I felt this relisting was the fairest course of action to take. On a general point, AfD discussions are not "votes" that can be boiled down to a ratio or percentage (unlike, say, requests for adminship), but are a place to express opinions about a given article which are then considered by an admin. I have absolutely no interest or axe to grind with this topic, I simply took a decision based on the available information. The article is now being discussed with the new sources, and this will lead to a much more complete picture of community opinion. Please give me a shout if you have any other questions. Deizio talk 00:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


It's cool. I had second thoughts anyway. I really think the absolute best place for WP:CHILL to redirect would be WP:CIVIL. But you are welcome to it for whatever you think best. dryguy 02:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Leyasu[edit]

Will do. Thanks, Danteferno 13:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, Deiz. Wether you could be bothered to work with me or not. Abusing admin powers isnt a good idea, especially when you have just told Danteferno you basically dont care if he vandalises a page, because youll just protect it so nobody can revert the vandalism. Not good.
Hi Ley. This isn't personal, this is because banned users aren't allowed to edit, and by so doing cause headaches for registered users. If any user brings to my attention examples of disruption by banned users in any subject area I'll investigate and take appropriate action. If you're intent on disrupting every article to do with metal music, this will be a long road but let's see where it leads. Deizio talk 10:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
That didn't take long. He's now using the IP Here's the diffs:
--Danteferno 04:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
No, just removed User:Leyasu's edit. --Danteferno 13:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that's what may have happened. My boo boo. I'll fix.--Danteferno 13:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for intervening, BTW. --Danteferno 13:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks like User:Leyasu has an extra alias in tow - User:Cronodevir. See the contribution history, the same article/article edits his IP socks had been making [7]. The style of writing of this editor (per the talk page posts) is also very Leyasuish [8]. May take a check user, but I'm dollars on dollars positive that this is him. --Danteferno 05:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


No, that's fine - I only added the notices as the original nominator seemed to consider they had added them to the nomination, and I wanted anybody involved to have a fair say - it's quite satisfactory for them not to be included in the result (it's what I would have done in your position). Cheers, Yomanganitalk 17:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Squats AfD[edit]

Hiya, I didnt see any broad consensus in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squats in UK debate and your verdict was a bald delete, so i wondered if you could explain your decision? Thanks, i know it all takes up time but i like to know that things get deleted for a (good) reason and in this specific case the original deletion proposal was in my opinion quite lame. Mujinga 22:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot for your reply, Deiz, i totally support your arguments as it happens but i was just interested to hear what they were. Personally i think a "Squatting in the UK" article is a good step in the future (i might even start it myself) but for now the UK section in Squatting serves ok. And the notable squats have a section there too. So it' all good. Thanks again! Mujinga 23:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson Jihad[edit]

Please review this newest AfD, your opinion would be appreciated. PT (s-s-s-s) 00:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for taking that evangelical rant out of the black metal article. The Crying Orc 09:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to avoid getting into trouble now because I edited the Christian metal article quite heavily. But I am trying to be more responsible now. I really just want to make the articles on metal better. And the only reason I went in heavy handed with Christian metal is precisely because of people who think like that person. Oh well. We live and learn. The Crying Orc 09:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi! I noticed you closed Emmalina as delete. Why did you come to that conclusion? It seems like there were two minds with the delete recs - that she didn't meet WP:BIO (which was false) and that she was merely a YouTube celeb (which isn't really true, given her outside media attention, not that being a YouTube celeb is grounds for deletion anyway). As she met WP:BIO, and the keep recs had the media mentions and our consensus-lead guidelines behind them, why did you delete? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Just letting you know, I've decided to DRV this. Sorry for the possible annoyance, I appreciated your commentary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: High Score[edit]

Heh, no problem. -- Kicking222 00:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Stoner Rock protection[edit]

Hey, I don't understand your activity at Stoner Rock. This edit was not only the first and only edit to that article in three days but also didn't seem like either vandalism or link spam. Why did that warrant sprotecting the article? —Wknight94 (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I meant to do it the other day after the latest episode of "18 Speed Tranny" linkspam but must have got sidetracked. You're right, the latest edit wasn't vandalism or link spam (was quite a bizarre edit though, removing part of the intro and affecting the grammar) but in any case the article was intended to be under protection for a little while. Deizio talk 11:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    Well, I'll defer to you but personally, I think zero edits to the article in over 2½ days indicates it doesn't need protection too much. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: North Berwick[edit]

Thanks for your message, Deiz. I apologise for removing the link carelessly. I thought it was just another affiliate portal. Thanks for reverting me. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks like RobPick (talk · contribs) might be a sock puppet of Frogcorp (talk · contribs). Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for uploading Image:Michaelcatonjonespromo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nilfanion (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that {{promotional}} is one of the most badly used image tags on Wikipedia (in general). This image of Michael Caton-Jones is in no way significant, and is used merely to illustrate his appearance in the article. This is a prime fair use counterexample. "An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like." As he is alive it is perfectly reasonable to attain a free pic (in this case an email may be more productive than a wikipedian photographer, WP has enough status to be able to request it and get a free pic on cases like this).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know the feeling its annoying that there is such a mess on FU. That pretty much is the definition of a photograph of a person. The reason for the "merely shows what they look like" phrase is because a fair use claim for certain images, generally iconic ones like Image:Carlos-Smith.jpg, is perfectly valid. I agree with you, I wish the fair use rules were clarified so it is fairly easy to understand. Good luck with your future contribs ;)--Nilfanion (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In re Church of Misery[edit]

Hi, I just got your message. I mainly reposted the BNR link because A) I was editing from work while on my break and B) BNR Metal is a very widely known and respected heavy metal website. I will add more to the Church of Misery page when I have time. --Eastlaw 23:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey. There is no reason to remove the Encyclopaedia Metallum link from Church of Misery. It's a Wikipedia-notable site and the entry contains the full discography of the band, which the article does not currently have. This is all per WP:EL. Prolog 00:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I agree the guideline seems a bit confusing at the moment. The article is of course short, but if the External links section contains a link to the band's discography, it is more likely that someone will add it and expand the article, even very soon since band articles without discographies fortunately seem very rare on WP. EM entries (although probably not the most reliable source) also include detailed info of each album, and it wouldn't be practical to include this in the main article, but it would require creating separate album articles. If these don't exist, I think the link even satisfies #1 on "Links normally to be avoided", although in practice an FA-level band article does have its own album articles. Another problem with leaving only an AMG, or any other, entry is that it represents only one point of view. Information regarding metal music (especially genres) seem to differ greatly from source to source. A second opinion at least satisfies WP:NPOV and is even encouraged by WP:EL. Thanks, Prolog 02:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

In re BNR Metal[edit]

Alright look, I'm going to be honest with you here. I can't find that many outside references to the website, apart from the fact that it is well known within the metal community itself. I don't know if that means per se that it should be deleted. I wasn't trying to stir up trouble, but I tend to be more of an inclusionist than most others here.

I'm not really sure how the AfD will come out, but I will be sorry to see this one go... --Eastlaw 03:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject South Korean counties and cities[edit]

I saw your area of interest in WikiProject Korea participant list. You should join this. It has only 3 participants for now. (Wikimachine 03:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

re Seoul Subway[edit]

I've been adding (or just doing some minor changes e.g. correcting Hanja or adding colour bars for transfer stations) the whole code everytime, and I too feel some need for a subway-specific template. But due to my lack of knowledge in the template syntax I couln't dare to make one. Maybe we can now try to make one. --Sjhan81 16:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the templates (Template:Seoul line 4 station, etc) :-) Now I'll start to fill those Seoul subway station articles with them. --Sjhan81 10:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA[edit]

Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 09:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ryan Dunn[edit]

Why did you revert? Emmelie 12:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Crystal personal.png

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 01:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


Are you an adminstrator? If so, can you please protect the Tracee Ellis Ross page from a member who goes by the name of Epeefleche, who is continually vandalizing the page. Thanks. - 05:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You appear to have a pretty well developed dispute going here. I don't really have the time to give this the attention it needs right now (it's actually my birthday) so I suggest reporting the matter at WP:AN/I. Deizio talk 12:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


thanks Im still getting used to closing AfD's sorry for the mistake

yes its about links[edit]

thanks for your reply. yes the issue with USer:Betacommand is indeed about links; but the links removed are not just some stupid useless fansites, they are exactly the "unique resource" you mentioned. plus the afromentioned user has not removed other (less important) links, only mine. also, nobody has ever complained about the links, and some of them are truly unique in their own right. --who-am-i 23:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

did you really read what i wrote? like i said before, the sites contain unique content that expand the articles. once a wikipedia article was even deleted because it stole ("copied") content from one of my sites. what do you mean by intrusive advertising? all the articles they were added to were heavily edited by me, and the links i added contain further information. whats wrong about that? and what do you mean by "poorly presented"? --who-am-i 23:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

addition: and what do you mean by "reliable source"? not even wikipedia itself is reliable. --who-am-i 23:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ambar - deleted and then restored[edit]

Not sure if this has been pointed out, but it looks like AfD screwed up. Just to start the ball rolling and institute a culture change, I'm trying to get all admins closing things at AfD to remember to check the page history of an article before deleting, so that drastic changes in the nature of a page are spotted, and also urging those voting at AfD to do the same. See the following for details:

Copied to closing admin, restoring admin, deletion nominator, all who voted in the AfD discussion, and the AfD talk page. Carcharoth 23:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


Playing devil's advocate only, it is very possible that the deletion of the Youtube Memes might really have affected the course of the prior AfD. I can't really see a keep result coming, but I could see a merge to YouTube; and, if someone can pull enough media mentions out of the press, I could see a sourced article popping up.... maybe. Point is, playing devil's advocate, I'm a big believer in the adage, "when in doubt, discuss", and the change in circumstance does introduce reasonable doubt, I think.

When I closed the debate, it was essentially "tied", which -- by strict reading of the rule -- means a relist. Just because an eventual deletion is more likely than not, it doesn't necessarily mean that more discussion is pointless - the more we talk about individual examples, the closer we come to hammering out a consensus guideline. I do think, given YouTube's new-found fame as a part of Google Empire, that a guideline on internet memes should address YouTube specifically. Personally, I favor a stricter guideline with a relatively high notability-bar, because I do not think chronicling every bit of the expotentially-expanding cruft of the internet age is in Wikipedia's best interest. I do firmly believe, though, that discussing the cruft again and again will help (nearly) everyone find, agree to, and accept the best consensus -- and, who knows, maybe meme fans will add some valuable insights about possible exceptions (encyclopedia-worthy cases) along the way. The more the community talks about this stuff, the more nuanced our approach can become, and the more united support for an eventual friendly consensus we can build.

Having said all that, I did think it was a bit odd to send Emmalina to AfD now. My hope, in making the closing, was that -- if we do end up having another AfD -- it will concern a much better rewrite. If I had merely endorsed the deletion in closing today, I would have been out-of-sync with the "head-count" and (more importantly, in my opinion) I would have been setting the stage for another DRV in a few months, because several endorsers were endorsing the deletion procedurally only, on account of the recently-closed DRV. I don't think that close would really have ended the dispute.

If the only thing that happens now is a continual edit-war over whether Emmalina should be a redirect, then maybe I should have opted for a straight relisting; I'll concede that. As I said, my hope is that sending the matter to Emmalina's talk page and its editors will either: 1) result in a consensus to merge a mention to YouTube (or to ignore Emmalina altogether); or 2) at least give us a better written, sourced article to judge at a new AfD.

I can understand your desire for closure; but I think real closure will only come when we find consensus about what to do with YouTube's many crufty memes. Even if we got Emmalina's deletion to "stick," the problem will just crop again elsewhere. Emmalina makes as good an example to discuss as any, I guess. I hate to think we disagree; you know I wiki-love you, since we're admin twins! ;) See my point? Feel free to tell me I'm stupid! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 04:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know that you are only looking out for best interests of Wikipedia, as we all are. Anyway, I just disagree with you about GRBerry's point regarding the YouTube Meme AfD -- I honestly believe it might have affected the Emmalina discussion, and I think the DRV was reasonable. I know that your reading of DRV procedure is a bit off -- the policy page is editable, so who knows what it says exactly on any day -- but practice from the beginning of VfU has been to relist in case of a "tie" (DRV is a forum for cloture, basically, so a decision to "cease discussion" requires a majority -- there's a bias in favor of openly talking about things, since we are a wiki): So my options were a straight relist or the compromise I tried. I'll admit I was wrong if only edit-warring results, as I said, and that I should have relisted directly.
I came to this matter as a neutral-party closer, and I closed it regularly as part of the daily closing routine. There is no reason to believe my judgment is compromised somehow -- I don't care about memes much at all. As such, the most I can say is that I won't decide on this matter if it comes to DRV again, but I do stand behind this close. I understand that you disagree, but my reasoning still seems pretty sound to me. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_October_26#Emmalina[edit]

Hey Valoem, I'd appreciate it if you'd check out my comment at the above. I had no idea this process was happening until I came across it by chance just now. Deizio talk 04:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just read you comment on the DRV, I have been busy as of late so I apologize for the delayed response. You have created a rather confusing aura in your words. I believe I understand what you are saying, but I'm not sure what to make of it. I have interpreted this anywhere from a complement to a warning. If you could please response on my talk with your intentions in the post, so I could make proper response, that would be great! :) Valoem talk 08:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Deiz[edit]

Thanks for the Wikipedia welcome, Deiz. I am fast becoming a wikiholic. I have installed 2 wikis at work an they were well received. Just did a demo. for our executive team. Awesome. Nprlisner 00:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for your compliment about my wording change in WP:EL! Just one question - to what wording change were you referring? I've made a lot of wording changes in it recently. :) - Brian Kendig 13:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


You've got six articles now up near the top of WP:PP#Semi-protection which have been protected for almost a month now. Shouldn't those be unprotected after this long? From the history, there were only a handful of edits per week to each of them and they were being reverted on sight per WP:BAN. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer Brunner[edit]

Can you please undelete Jennifer Brunner? I see that the arguments for deletion were that she was only a candidate. She is now our Secretary of State elect, and this is the most powerful position in the state after the Governor, so I think a bio here is appropriate. — Coelacan | talk 17:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi Deiz,

Since you mentioned... would you possibly be able to move Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/To do to Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/to do? Unfortunately the latter page has an edit history, so I can't do the move myself. The case distinction wouldn't matter, except that the links from {{Todo}} work only on the lowercase title; thus, the "edit" link on the main WikiProject page is now directing users to the edit screen for an empty, redirected page. This makes the whole "to-do" section rather less useful than it should be. Thanks for your help, -- Visviva 12:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Working fine. Thanks again!  :-) -- Visviva 03:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Skateboarding wikiproject[edit]

I haven't had too much time to look at Wikipedia lately. I would be happy if someone took the idea from me and made it into an actual Wikiproject. --Liface 01:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-semiprotection of Diabolique (band), Tiamat (band), Paradise Lost (band)?[edit]

We all know the ban-evading, multiple-IP-address Leyasu is not going to stop his continuous revert/inflammatory edit summary wars ... I'm not too sure why that other admin removed semi-protection from the articles, due to the severity of this situation. I haven't seen it this worse anywhere else.

Long term, what could be done? I'm actually tempted to see where these IP's are coming from, as someone (for a long part of the day) has quite a bit of mileage, and a lot of wheels. Perhaps a school or business? If that is the case, I think the Network Administrators there would be very interested in knowing what their Telecom account is being used for, under the radar. Despite another admin's reluctance, there was an earlier, non-related article incident involving a string of abusive IP edits (presumably from the same user). 'Tracked down the abuse e-mail, sent a complaint, and the anon reverter stopped.

What ever is simple, what ever is legimate. Either way, this has gone on way too long. --Danteferno 03:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Could the above 3 articles be semi-protected again?--Danteferno 14:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

David Jones[edit]

I have cleaned-up the article a bit. Thanks for the prod. Catchpole 19:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


  • Hey Deiz,I don't think we need a newspaper article to tell us that scangers wear tracksuits.If someone actually objects then we can put in a source, although i don't think anyone would object it's common knowledge.However i accept that the article is poorly written Dermo69 20:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok next time i get a chance i'll work to rewrited this artcile Dermo69 13:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Galbijim wiki[edit]

Hi - sometimes the two wikis complement each other and when they do it's fine to share information - the page Gangnam-gu Office Station here for example was made by me on the Galbijim Wiki, and later on copied verbatim over here. Sometimes though you'll get a page like this one where the information is unreferenced and subjective, but as a wiki for expats that can still serve as a source of info even if it's not written in the most professional manner. As far as traffic goes we get very little from Wikipedia (most traffic is from Google, Yahoo and, a board I post on) and the links I've put up have been in case anyone here wants to copy information over here from our wiki, especially on the small towns and counties that nobody really knows about except those that have lived there for a while. What I hope for is a situation where encyclopedic and well-referenced information is shared, and first-hand information (movie theatres that don't show credits, tasty bibimbap restaurant out exit 7 of some station and everything else not relevant here) is written on ours. I actually think a slight change in policy should be made to external links when the page is on a place where there is little to no information in English - most of the info on small towns has been translated from Korean to English by me, and the only other info you can find on these places is in blogs and postings on boards here and there. I should also note that I didn't create the Galbijim template, and that the site has under 300 articles from Wikipedia (less than 5%) and therefore is most definitely not a fork or a mirror. Trafficwise it would make little difference if all the links here were gone but for subjects as obscure as those ones I see no reason too. I do appreciate T-rex's efforts to fight spam though and I think Wikipedia would be a much worse place without the vigilance of people like him. Mithridates 03:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


Thanks Deiz could you get Dermo69 as the only name of the page please? Dermo69 20:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

PS The scanger dispute appears to have been solved now.

Thanks. Dermo69 16:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)