User talk:Deepfriedokra/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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[edit]

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

Archives[edit]

1. Mar 3, 2006 - May 4, 2006

2. May 5, 2006 - May 25, 2006

3. May 26, 2006 - Aug 3, 2006

4. Aug 5, 2006 - Aug 25, 2006

5. Aug 25, 2006 - Sep 27, 2006

6. Oct 3 2006 - Oct 29 2006

7. Oct 30, 2006 - Nov 29, 2006

8. Nov 29, 2006 - Jul 7, 2007

9. Jul 8, 2007 - Sep 17, 2007

10. Sep 15 - Oct 13, 2007

11. Oct 13, 2007 - Nov 29

Messages[edit]

Marvin Perry sources[edit]

You're welcome, do the news paper / magazine articles have to be online articles? As someone else is asking for magazine / news paper articles, Marvin has been in a few martial arts magazines but those articles are not published online which is what makes this a bit more difficult. WM208.59.93.238 20:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Printed sources would help:Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Perry Sources[edit]

Please keep in mind that these articles were never published online they were scanned from the actual magazine and placed on the kickboxing gym's web server

QIGONG WUSHU KUNG FU Magazine March 1999

Magazine Cover

http://boston-kickboxing.com/march_1999/cover.jpg


San Shou article on the left Marvin's picture on the right page 51

http://boston-kickboxing.com/march_1999/p51.jpg


Kung Fu QIGONG Magazine Nov/Dec 2001

Magazine Cover

http://boston-kickboxing.com/Nov_Dec_2001/cover.jpg


Marvin's picture is in the top left corner and the article is below page 89


http://boston-kickboxing.com/Nov_Dec_2001/p89.jpeg


wm208.59.93.238 03:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question for an Administrator[edit]

DTM 142 keeps going around deleting things from articles relating to hunting because he has no idea about the subject and does not like what is said. What can be done about his biased editing of discussions? Thanks--203.192.91.4 14:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Bisel[edit]

Thank you for your note and request regarding Sara Bisel. I have access to Dr. Bisel's papers. I have also talked with and her daughter, Jane Bisel, about the claim of the Nat. Geo. photographer andthe placement of tyhe jewelry, as well as other changes I have made to the article. I have looked at the following:

Dr. Bisel's obit in the Rochester Post Bulletin, Rochester, MN,(Tuesday, February 6, 1996.)

Naitonal Geographic, Vol 162, No 6. "BuriedRoman Town Give Up Its Dead," (December, 1982)

National Geographic, Vol 165, No 5. "The Dead Do Tell Tales," (May, 1984)

Discover magazine, Vol 5, No 10. "The Bone Lady" (October, 1984)

Additionally, there two video productions about Sara and Herculaneum.

1) "In the Shadow of Vesuvius" National Geo Special, (February 11, 1987) 2) "30 yearsof National Geographic Special," (January 25, 1995)

She has co-written a book with her daughter.

"The Secrets of Vesuvius," Scholastic/Madison Press, 1991

Also, there is a chapter in "The Natural History of Pompeii," edited by Jashemski and Meyer, that was recently published (2002) by Cambridge University Press. The authors of the chapter, "Health and Nutrition at Herculaneum: An Examination of Human Skeletal Remains" are Sara and Jane Bisel.

Any help you could give would be much appreciated!

Thanks - Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by SGW999 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how we cite her papers-- those are primary sources. They're useful, but too much reliance on them would make the article "original research", which is not good. Please see WP:NOR. We would probably put Her Name. Personal papers. Name, title, etc. Date written. The others look good as secondary sources. (Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so it uses primarily secondary sources.) For citing, if the sources apply generally through the article, you can create a ==Works cited== section and organize them there. If each reference points to a particular line or section, you can put the information between <ref> </ref> tags and then put {{reflist}} in a reference section at the bottom. The mediawiki softwate will automatically list the references with numbered footnotes in the text. Or you can mix and match. Follow the manual of style link in the welcome for more general information. Hope that helps.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Bisel[edit]

Thanks again! I am very new to Wiki and your comments are much appreciated. I have added more sources for what I wrote about Sara, as well as seperated out her publications. Let me know if it is OK. I will go back and re-format (based on Wiki guidlines) when I get a chance.

Steve SGW999 18:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adreka Submission[edit]

Thank you kindly for your email, this is my second submission to the wiki and I am still learning the ropes. Looking forward in conversing.

Cheers. J —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adreka001 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Bisel[edit]

I have made some changes to the Sara Bisel article, but, am having a hard time linking outside http sources. Her obits are not available on-line, nor are most of the articles I have cited. Not sure what to do. On the plus side, I did managed to get one linked.

Does the article look any better?

Also, I noticed that someone has said there maybe a conflict of interest regarding the article. Kinda no fun and am discouraged.

Thanks - Steve SGW999 02:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in here, as the person who placed the conflict of interest tag. Don’t be discouraged! There can, however, be problems when articles are essentially written by people close to the subject: there is a temptation to ‘valorize’ the subject out of proportion to its importance in the context of a global encyclopedia. (To write an encomium is praiseworthy, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish it.) And as your main contributions to Wikipedia currently are to articles on two people called Bisel, it seemed likely that you had some connection with the family. My intention in placing the tag was not to do-down either Sara Bisel’s reputation or your writing about her: rather I hoped that it would draw in other editors with knowledge in the field who would be able to ensure that the importance of the subject was not being over- or under-played.
In retrospect I see that it would have been better if I had first dropped a note on your talk page and asked whether you had some personal or professional connection with the Bisels. I apologise for not doing that. (Sometimes one is rushed.)
Is there a connection?
—Ian Spackman 14:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no?[edit]

Ok so you just told me that my comments to new users is "uncivil and not conducive of an encyclopediac environment". Then you told me to greet members with a generic template! Dude, that is such a pussy way of greeting members. How do you think it makes them feel when they sign up and the best thing we can do is slap a welcome stamp on their talk page with nothing original or special, just for them? Unlike other members that slap a template on and called it good, I was being a man about it by 1: Checking their edits, 2: Judging if their edits were in good faith 3: Making original comments about them and why their edit(s) were good/bad. I am absolutely appalled that you would call any of what I said "Complimenting Vandals" and "Scaring away newcomers". Here's two of my comments incase you didn't get the picture.
"I like your edits, pimp. Looks like you just might be what this project needs. Keep up the good work."
"Good job Kerry. Looks like you got the smarts, skills, and manhood to get some real work done around here. This place ain't for most of the other pussies that sign up. Glad to see you've got more mojo than they do." AlfredTerry 13:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my reply.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Bisel[edit]

Yes, I have a connection with the Bisel family. But, my articals should stand on their own, and I would be happy to discuss any specific issue anyone has with them. Certainly having a connection to family should not automatically disqualify an entry.

What prompted me to write about Dr. Harry Bisel on Wikipedia was the Minnesota Historical Society's Mayo Clinic display in the exhibit, "MN 150." Dr. Bisel has a number of his artifacts on display, as do a number of other Mayo staff. I wanted to link the MHS wiki page to your wiki page in order to allow visitors access to more in-depth information. I hoped to write articles and add to existing entries about Drs. E Starr Judd, Philip Hench, Edward Kendall, Wiliam Plummer, and Howard Polly in order to supplement the exhibit. (I should note that I am not getting any compensation from anyone for any of this work)

I have already worked a bit on the Dr. Henry Stanley Plummer and the Mayo Clinic articles. Sadly, an error on one of those pages has made it into the exhibits printed catalogue. Specifically, one which states that St. Marys Hospital became the Mayo Clinic in 1914. Yikes!

At that point, I decided to look at the Herculanuem page, and was disturbed by the misinformation. That is when I decided to add the Dr. Sara Bisel artical.

The question now is how do I get the "conflict of interest" bar removed from the articles? In the meantime, I will remove the links from the Minnesota Historical Society pages to Wikipedia.

Thanks again for taking a look at this - I would appreciate any help.

Steve SGW999 16:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I will remove the links from the Minnesota Historical Society pages to Wikipedia.
Why? —Ian Spackman 16:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bisel link removal from MHS[edit]

My concern about having a link to Harry Bisel from the MHS "wiki" (which is a seperate entity from your on-line wiki) is that it may give the impression that his label and interprative material is questionable. In the context of Wiki, this type of dialoge is inherent in the process and acceptable, while in the Museum community it often is not.

To further complicate matters, I helped write (as a unpaid volunteer with no connection to the Mayo Clinic) for MHS the Mayo Clinic interp materials and labels. Note - all materials submitted was vetted and appoved by the MHS and the Clinic. I also wrote the nomination for the Mayo Clinic.

Thanks again,

Steve SGW999 17:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated and Duly Noted[edit]

Yes, your comments did help and may I apologize on confronting you in such a belligerent manner. I know it might not make sense in your perspective but it gets frustrating when your way of doing something is challenged by someone with more authority than you do. I don't mean to say that you did the wrong thing but I just hope you understand the extent of the reason I responded the way I did. You're actually one of the few decent people on here, and again, my apologies for talking to you in such a manner, since you do deserve respect. AlfredTerry 17:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyCheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Perry {primarysources}[edit]

Howdy, do you think that the organization that awards a title is really a secondary source? They have as much of a financial interest as the person that won the award - it serves as advertising for them. To me, a secondary source would be someone that doesn't have a financial stake writing about the topic - and I don't see that here. Have fun! —Mrand T-C 22:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A primary source would be the subject's papers, letters, journals and such, or the document s and first hand accounts of others. For instance, Jefferson's letters are primary sources. They speak volumes on the world as he saw it.
Think of your question in a broader context. The members of may have a stake or interest, but how does that keep them from recognizing members of the group who have excelled? Who better to ask them someone who knows? What possible gain would there in conveying a title on a member of the group who has not proven himself to be worthy or a champion? Does any other professional sport not recognize it's champions? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see the sanctioning body's publications as secondary sources, but I'm found it harder to find the related policies than it should be. If you could show me the policies I couldn't find, it would help me be more sensible. Gotta stop for now. Too tired.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I look at it from the point of view that they are not completely Wikipedia:Independent sources from the subject at hand (in my opinion). My reason for calling them a primary source is because they are the exact ones who awarded the title(s). This is one of those gray areas that many people will have varying opinions on, so I'm not too worried about it.—Mrand T-C 20:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, it is in a gray area, but the subject could not control the source, and there is nothing to gain from a sanctioning body giving an award to someone unworthy. I think we can be certain he earned the titles. The frustrating thing has been finding truly independent sources. My hope is that someone somehow can come up with better sourcing for this. I guess gray sources are better than none. <sigh> Then there is the AfD debate. Does the fact the sport lacks main stream media coverage mean the sport and its champion's are not encyclopedic? Again a gray area, but sometimes if one is to risk erring, it's better to err on the side of the article if one cannot find certainty. In the past, I've seen a discussion go to keep based on similar, to me at the time, trivial coverage and miserable (to me) sources. Currently, I've been gnashing my teeth and wringing my hands over spending ours to come up with one or two measly sources of other articles.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure I was clear... I'm not saying he didn't earn it. The only thing I'm saying is that the people making the awards are not independent of the awards, and therefore in my opinion, not unbiased third-party observers. Have fun! —Mrand T-C 23:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA[edit]

Thanks for voting on my RFA! Although ultimately it was unsuccessful, I do appreciate the feedback. You being skeptic of me given my actions in controversies is completely understandable - I have nothing to disagree with you here, I have acted out of line at least a couple of times and that is unacceptable to say the least. However, I do believe that at this point I have evolved enough as an editor to not make those mistakes and be civil in situations, and I hope that if I ever decide to run again my editing history will be a burden of proof to that - and I will strive to gain experience and improve my abilities even further to ensure that, next time, it does. So again, thank you for the feedback, and hopefully I will be able to eventually earn your support!--danielfolsom 22:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ClaimJumperBill Did What?[edit]

Forgive my ignorance, but did ClaimJumperBill just insert that gutter talk nonsense shown in yellow when the latest two version of David Talbott are compared? Is that what he does? Please tell me what such behavior is about. Phaedrus7 17:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ClaimJumperBill introduced hidden spam text to a number of articles and was subsequently blocked indefinitely by Wknight94. I never saw hidden text spam before. Maybe he thought RCPatrol would not notice. Makes no sense to me.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiki Vale[edit]

I just edited the Kiki Vale page and would like for you to look at it again. I think it is up to the standard of Wikipedia. Please let me know as soon as possible if there is anything else I need to change. Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigJ83 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mongoloid Race - India section[edit]

That section belongs on a page specific to India. Dark Tea pushes an agenda to single out how racially impure India is and frequently singles out the country on pages non-specific to India.

Her comment to me - "Face it. You're not pure Caucasians." on the Mongoloid Race history page displays this. I NEVER once said Indians were pure Caucasians. Making such a comment is silly and would never be made by me. Pureaswater 23:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like y'all got a content dispute going. I think you need to seek consensus on the talk page amongst the editors before removing such a big junk. If that does not seem feasible, you can make a Request for commentCheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mongoloid Race - 3RR[edit]

I understand.

The information is no doubt evidenced well by citations, and Dark Tea has done her research extensively and effectively. A whole section about one country is too specific for that page though. That information would sit comfortably on a page specific to the racial make up of India. If she wants to be so painstakingly specific, then she should add large sections about other nations with Mongoloid influence, such as the many nations of the Far East and South Eastern Asia, not to mention the Mongoloid influence in Central and Western Asia also.

If you had a look at her various comments and edits to other pages, you will clearly see she is pushing an agenda to add sections specific to India on pages non specific to any country, in the hope of proving how 'racially impure' Indians are. I don't know why she does this, but it is her behaviour.

Maybe you should advise her to create a page specific to the races of India where she can add her information more appropriately.

Many thanks, Pureaswater 23:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't want to take sides in this. My advice remains to set up an RfC. If you like, I can set it up on the talk page.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mongoloid Race - 3RR[edit]

I'm not asking you to take anybody's side.

Surely if you saw her edit history you could see how painstakingly she singles out India on numerous pages that have nothing specifically to do with India.

Thanks,

Pureaswater 23:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like you object to a well cited,section to an established article. The whole article needs work. Your demand that Dark Tea make similar edits to other articles or remove this section seems unreasonable to me. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mongoloid Race[edit]

No, you have grossly misunderstood what I was trying to get at.

The section is well cited and indeed deserves to be on Wikipedia.

However, it is not good practice to single out one nation on an article non-specific to that nation, or any other nation for that matter, without also doing the same for any other nations that are relevant to the article.

The page is about the race generally. Any specifics should either be on pages specific to each nation's racial make up, or there should be specific sections for each nation with a Mongoloid influence. I mean, why is there no section about the Mongoloid influence in nations such as Afghanistan and Tajikistan for instance?

Thanks,

Pureaswater 14:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The perfect gift![edit]

Just what I've always wanted! My very own macrophage!! And I think you deserve one of these little puppies:

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your Heroic efforts at combating vandalism ...! Dreadstar † 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
::Are you a Babylon 5 fan? Narnstar...heh...(sorry, couldn't resist..;) Dreadstar † 23:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I'm also a lousy typer. LOLCheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of God[edit]

Hi,

No. It does, however, appear to satisfy criterion #5 of WP:MUSIC. If one strictly follows the guideline, perhaps it does. An AfD consensus would, of course, be free to ignore the guideline in individual cases, if a good rationale were given to do so. The guideline does render the information significant for the purpose of allowing a new debate: that's why the DRV succeeded. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I either had skipped over that line or had forgotten it.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spongebob[edit]

I deleted the controversy part because I didn't think Spongebob should be criticized. I would like you reply to tell me why Spongebob needed to be criticized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pediagoof (talk • contribs) 22:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and uncensored. It covers as much of a subject as possible-- good or bad. Besides, I think the Controversy section says more about his critics than it does about Spongebob-- who is beyond reproach.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh[edit]

Oh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pediagoof (talk • contribs) 22:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh[edit]

oh, sorry about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pediagoof (talk • contribs) 22:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Response (KieferSkunk)[edit]

Hi there. Thank you for participating in my RfA. I wanted to ask you a quick question about your oppose vote - you mentioned that part of your reason for opposing was that my answer to Question 1 is vague. I've seen several people continue to say it's a vague response after I revised it to cite specific areas in which I felt I could help, so I'd like to ask what is vague about my response and what you would like to see that would improve the quality of that response. The question itself is rather vague, and I feel there are quite a few areas that I can and would be qualified to help out - I listed them in order of familiarity and specificity, and with the intention of saying that I'm willing to help everywhere, learning the skills that I need as I go.

Could you please take a look at the response I left to your vote in the RfA, and give me some guidance on what you're looking for in a good admin candidate? Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My response.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Successful RfA - Thank you![edit]

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. It was successful, and I was promoted to Administrator today. I appreciate your comments and will take them to heart as I learn the ropes. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint about removal[edit]

Hey man I put some info on the aviation high school page why did you get rid of my shit brosef? 71.255.71.150 02:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my reply]Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

Thank you for participating in my RfA. As you may be aware, it was closed as "no consensus". Since your vote was one of the reasons why it did not succeed, I would like to personally address your concerns so that I can reapply successfully. Your concern appeared to be "I believe the goal of free content is more important than the goal of informing...Understanding IAR is also very important for an admin as their responsibilties take them into weighing policy against common sense".

It seems that I was not clear enough in my RfA that as an administrator, I would have to obey the community's wishes, no matter now much I disagree with them. It would be wrong of me to force my personal opinion on others.

As far as WP:IAR, I have understood for some time that the rules can be bent when necessary. I'm sorry that I wasn't more clear about that.

Please let me know if this addresses your concerns. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to message on my talk page) - Thank you for your response. Does this mean that you would support me were I up for adminship again? —Remember the dot (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply to reply to reply.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My (KWSN's) RFA[edit]

Thank you for supporting my recent (and successful!) RfA. It passed at at 55/17/6. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bragaglia[edit]

Ciao! I fixed Anton Giulio Bragalia as possible. It looked decent; there were just some wrong formatting of titles and similar. Let me know if there's still something you need. Dood work and thanks for asking my help... I like much to copyedit Wikipedia!!! --Attilios 08:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

My RFA
Thanks for your support in my recent request for adminship, which was successful. I'll do my best to justify the confidence you've placed in me! Dppowell 22:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Warm Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]

Dlohcierekim: Thanks so much for the message you sent welcoming me to Wiki. It made happy that people like you care about newbies like me! I am not so familiar with HTML code (as you can see in some of my edits and posts), so maybe you could help me with that sometime? Thanks again! Writelydie 01:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Jewelry Article[edit]

So how do I go about getting this article cleaned up and edited to wiki specs?

rex495 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rex495 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks[edit]

Main page: User_talk:Peachey88 § Thanks

No Problem. I just noticed it while on your talk page for some reason so i fixed it. Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 07:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizendium as a free source?[edit]

Hello. Until Citizendium has decided upon a license and officially licensed their articles under said license (and it proves to be compatible with the GFDL), we can't use their material. A shame though, it was a good article. Thanks! henrik•talk 21:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I was very tempted just to de-speedy those, but I wanted to be sure. The licnesure is, as you say still iffy. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I was beaten to this. I moved the article to AfD to call attention to the matter - as I suspect that we may use other articles from Citizendium in the future - but I agree with Henrik's reasoning. In any case, you may want to add your two cents to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telephone newspaper. Tijuana Brass 21:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tijuana Brass. Look like an enigma wrapped in a conundrum! No, the answer is to rewrite for now and hope they straighten out there licensure issues. All of those article looked like keepers. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've copied my comment there too - as you say, some more eyes might be good. :) henrik•talk 21:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - great article, just needs a rewrite (or maybe just a stub, if it looks like a decision is coming in the near future). Man, three admins all coming together on the same thing? I think hell may be freezing over. Tijuana Brass 21:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HI there! I posted the Ancient celtic music article and also forked another two articles from Citizendium: Theodor Lohmann and Telephone newspaper so whatever is decided should be applied to all three. Anyway when I copied them over I did so because I though they were well written and were missing from wikipedia with the exception of Telephone newspaper which was a stub. At the time I checked citizendium's copyright policy here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Copyrights, which states: All articles with content sourced from Wikipedia to the Citizendium are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2. All other contributions are considered to be released under an open content license yet to be determined.

So I assumed that this should allow us to copy their content. After this article was nominated for deletion I decided to look into the matter and apperently they are going to decide on their license by november 15 and the three candidates are the GDFL (the same we use over here), CC-BY-SA (which is compatible with the GDFL and again would allow us to usethe content) and CC-BY-SA-NC which would limit commercial use and so would be incompatible with the GDFL. The question remains however if we can copy their material now as they themselves state that its currently distributed under a free license. In any case their deadline for choosing a license is close enough that I think we can wait and then take any appropriate action.

PS: I posted this on Henriks discussion page but now I see this discussion here so I'm posting it here too, I read what you said above and I dont disagree, I wrote the text above before I read your posts so its not supposed to be a reply. Just informing what happened, anyway the should make a decision soon enough, hope its one that allows us to use some of those very nice articles! oh and guys when something like this happens please let the original editor know about before taking action, Im not a new user and I started editing wikipedia even before I created my account, what I'm trying to say is you should give people enough time to reply before deleting or atleast say something on their talk page, all I got was a bot message.. I'm not mad or anything, after all we were all in doubt as to the nature of their copyright policy and I myself would have not copied them had I seen all that discussion that is going on at citizidium about licencing beforehand. Good job on spoting this violation though, means nothing is getting thruh :D RIP-Acer 21:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OhanaUnited's RfA[edit]

Thanks for voting at my RfA. Unfortunately, the result stands at 51 support, 21 oppose and 7 neutral which means that I did not succeed. As many expressed their appreciation of my works in featured portals during my RfA, I will fill up the vacuum position of director in featured portal candidates to maintain the standards of featured contents in addition to my active role in Good articles. Have a great day. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

Thanks for your support at my RfA, which I have withdrawn. The result is at (7/8/2). Have a great day. NHRHS2010 talk 04:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one expects a Pigman admin![edit]

Wallowing in my RfA: This time it's personal...
My sincere thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 51 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. Doubtless it was an error to put one of the government-bred race of pigmen in any position of authority, but I hope your confidence in me proves justified. Even a man pure of heart and who says his prayers at night can become a were-boar when the moon is full and sweet. Fortunately, I'm neither a were-pig nor pure of heart so this doesn't appear to be an imminent danger to Wikipedia for the moment. Fortunate as well because were-pig hooves are hell on keyboards and none too dexterous with computer mice. If ever I should offend, act uncivil, misstep, overstep, annoy, violate policy, or attempt to topple the fascist leadership of Wikipedia, please let me know so I can improve my behaviour and/or my aim. I am not an animal; I am an admin. And, of course, if there is any way in which I can help you on Wikipedia, please do not hesitate to ask me. Despite my japes, I am indeed dedicated to protecting and serving Wikipedia to the best of my foppish and impudent abilities. I will strive to be an admirable admin, shiny and cool, reasonable and beatific. Pigmanwhat?/trail 05:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Post Scriptum: I believe my collaged graphic at left, which incorporates the WP globe and mop image, falls under the rubric of parody for my purposes here. Or is it satire? Regardless, it's a legitimate and legally protected First Amendment usage under US law. Complaints and allegations that this is an improper "fair use" image will be entertained on my talk page, probably with fruit juice, finger food and exotic coffees.

Thank you[edit]

Thank You[edit]

Dear Mike,

Thanks very much for the kind welcome, and the hints and suggestions. I am definitely a neophyte at this, and I appreciate any and all advice.

--Kenyonlord 18:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Nodrog[reply]

I am not a vandal.[edit]

Excuse me, but have you ever been to MSSM, let alone Maine? I would think that you most likely lack the personal experience to realize that my edits are factual. :3 Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.20.94.189 (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:17, 13 November 2007

my rfa[edit]

My RfA[edit]

Hi Dlohcierekim! Thank you so much for voicing your support in my successful RfA. I'm humbled to have the community's trust. As I master the ways of the mop and bucket, please don't hesitate to message me for any advice or corrections. Cheers! Spellcast 23:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankspam[edit]


FROM THE SOUTH[edit]

Hi again! I am, Belen from FROM THE SOUTH group, do you remember us? Well, we previously asked you for help in our Advanced English final project. It was required for us to extend a stub or write a new article that does noy exist at Wikipedia, about any topic of our country. FROM THE SOUTH decided to extend a stub. We found Amecameca's page could be a good option. We proceeded to add relevant information supported by reliable sources about this municipality of Mexico. We would like you to read it and give us some feedback. You can check it at>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amecameca
Please if you have any comments or suggestions feel free to write us at our group discussion page at >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/From_the_South 

 so that our teacher could be able to see it and grade us. Than you very much for you time and attention.--Belen Rios 06:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear![edit]

Did I just fall for that? :S Best, Rudget zŋ 17:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reply.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. :) Rudget zŋ 17:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Howdy Dlohcierekim, thanks for participating in my request for adminship. I am happy to say it was successful, 55/0/0, and I am looking forward to getting to work. Thanks for your vote of confidence. By all means, feel free to check in on my work to come. Suggestions and advice are always appreciated.

--TeaDrinker 06:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 12:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA for Canadian Paul[edit]

Four years ago this day, a foreigner was voted by the community to serve a land that he loved. Today, a new foreigner humbly accepts the charge and support of serving a community that he loves. Hopefully, he won't disappoint.


Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of (47/0/1). The trust bestowed upon me by the community is one of the most touching honours that I have ever received, and I vow not to let you down. Whether you have suggestions for ways in which I could improve, a request for assistance or just need someone to listen, my talk page and my email are always open. I pledge to do what I can to help this project, in the words of a man who needs no introduction, "make the internet not suck." A special thank you goes out to Tim Vickers for nominating me. Cheers, CP 22:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

Hi; thanks for your support to my RfA, which closed successfully at (51/1/2). I'll keep this brief since I don't like spamming anyone: I'll work hard to deserve the trust you placed in me. Thanks again. — Coren (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA (Random832)[edit]

Thank you, Dlohcierekim, for participating in my RFA, which passed 35/1/0. I look forward to helping out. If you have any concerns or suggestions/advice, my talk page is always open.—Random832 14:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry...[edit]

I don't think you're trying to change my vote. I just feel regret for Shalom because he has such good qualities that have been overcast by this last RFA business. I really wish it to succeed, but at this very moment, it looks unlikely. And I'm trying to give a little hope to a candle that's quickly burning out.... (if that makes sense :S) Regards, Rudget.talk 20:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Report[edit]

So vigilant was your report there, that even the main man commented. Nice one dude. Have a surreal image with caption as a reward! Pedro :  Chat  22:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim was so on the ball that even the big cheese weighed in in recognition.
Kudos to you dude. It was very much the thing to do. I've commented at ANI to try and get the thread now quietly dropped as the foundation can sort it. Pedro :  Chat  22:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
concur.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW. When's this going to get put on your account? :) Pedro :  Chat  22:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nom[edit]

Would you like me to nominate / co nominate? No offense if you'd prefer I didn't. Pedro :  Chat  22:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I thought you were one! Unless Pedro had beat me to it, i would have been happy to nom too. henrik•talk 23:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Off, Off *Beats henrik with stick. He's my candidate.* Ha Ha! I'm sure Dloh would be delighted to accept your offer over mine, unless he wishes to self-nom. Either way my offer stands. Pedro :  Chat  23:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WOW again. Thanks to both. Never, in my wildest dreams, did I imagine it would come to this. Why not both?Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, since Pedro was here first, he should do the honors. I'd be happy to add a co-nom however. :-) Just to be clear, I presume it is this account you'd like to use, and not your other one? You might want to write up an explanation on how you plan on using your accounts in the future for the RfA, since it is a bit unusual. henrik•talk 23:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll prepare a nomination and liase with henrik if that is okay. If your wish to transclude it on the 1st that's your decision my friend. I've only offered to nom once before (or rather offered to nom which the candidate has accepted - I have a couple waiting) but it worked out fine!. Best. Pedro :  Chat  23:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. thanks again.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Problem. It's a delight to do so. Pedro :  Chat  23:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi mate, just drafting the nom. Could you give me a small background bit on your break for a few months at the start of the year, if possible? Pedro :  Chat  08:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Sorry wasn't prying but I bet you'd get asked at RFA. What I'd suggest is that you just make a brief note about this (and your other account which you may not want to actually identify due to privay issues (for those who can't read backwards !!)) in your acceptance bit. Just saves people asking. Hope you liked the nom! Pedro :  Chat  14:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I've popped you an email about that too, which I hope you got. I think it might be better to identify it, but it is of course up to you - I don't want you to do anything you're not comfortable with. henrik•talk 14:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit late now, but still, could I co-nom? I've seen you around and been in touch with you a couple of times, and I've been left with a very good impression. ? Rudget.talk 17:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dloh, are you still planning to go for the 1st or did you want to go sooner? Pedro :  Chat  08:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC) Sorry, saw your edit summary that you're still looking for the 1st December! Don't forget to pop you signature on the "I accept bit" as well as the statement. Cheers buddy. Pedro :  Chat  08:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay matey, I'll transclude on the 27th unless you beat me to it and want to go sooner / or if you prefer to transclude youurself. Whatever's best. Vertainly a good idea to be around to answer any questions. Pedro :  Chat  13:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note. I won't co-nominate any more. But please do rely on my support. If it's not there first then...  :) Rudget.talk 16:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. It's not because I don't like you. It's just I wanted Henrik to nominate, as he rightly points out that some people can get mad when they see too many co-nominations. Best, Rudget.talk 17:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the nom statement - yeah, I'm not even sure what I meant by that!??! I've changed it about. And Rudget/Henrik are right. A fair few people got pretty irritated by my RfA with an embarassing and (in retrospect) overkill 6 noms. I think the community feels two or maybe three at a maximum are best. Best to go along with that! Pedro :  Chat  19:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Agreed.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI[edit]

I completely agree. Better to be safe than sorry. But what to do about these is still unclear and AFAIK, the Foundation does not function 24/7, as I've just pointed out there. Good call, though. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vote[edit]

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of (53/0/1).

As a token of my appreciation, please accept this bowl of tzatziki.

I feel honored to be trusted by so many of you. Wikipedia is such a large community, that my acceptance in the face of such large numbers truly is humbling. I will use my new tools to continue the tasks for which you entrusted them to me.

Gratefully, EncycloPetey (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jiggerdude[edit]

Someone else protected it; by the time I saw your message, I had finished removing his "additions" to your comments. Hope it's better now. Regards, BencherliteTalk 01:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I've been an admin for less than a week and already I'm accused of going rouge! IMHO, protecting the wrong version doesn't mean you have to protect a version with blatant vandalism in it, just because the last edit happened to be vandalism. Similarly, given the discussion I've seen going on between you and Pedro about A Certain Forthcoming Event, I didn't see a need for a protected talk page to make it look to the casual reviewer of your edits as though you were uncivil. Yours, BencherliteTalk 02:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. A Certain Page has already been watchlisted, and I look forward to seeing what happens then... BencherliteTalk 02:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Jewelry Article[edit]

I've found similar wiki articles on Brendles, Witmark, & Service Merchandice, all of which apparently survive the editing process, so why does the only verified survivor of the catalog showroom industry not merit inclusion. There numerous articles about the company, easily findable on google, such as: http://jck.polygon.net/archives/1999/06/jc06-237.html "Can Service Merchandice Survive?" http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1993_1172510 "A Gem of A Comeback". While I clear acknowledge that my prose is poor and cluttered and should be edited, the information is relevant. Rex495 (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)rex495

Just because other not notables have articles does not make an Houston Jewelry notable. If you have information that supports a claim of [[WP:N|meeting notability] orverifiability requirements, please appeal the deletion at deletion review.
Did you spell Brendles correctly? I don't see that article. The Witmark article says the company had a 34% share of the market. That sounds like a company that meets the notability guideline for companies. Service Merchandise "was the nation's top catalog-showroom retailer." That sounds like meeting WP:CORP to me.
As I recall, Houston Jewelry was a local Texas retailer. Although longlived, it was never nationally know as a household name, as was Service Merchandise. The links you provided seem to me to support a claim of local notability. A single write up mentioning Houston Jeweleres and Service Merchandise together does not necessarily amount to significant media coverage. The other article says it is "A local institution."
The quality of your prose is not a factor nor should it be. Writing quality is not a factor in determining whether or not an article should be included on Wikipedia. Generally, the discussion ceters on the subject's notability and the verifiability of the sources. Sorry I could not be more helpful. I will try to take another look at the issue next week, but will be busy with my job until Tuesday. The closing admin was User:Haemo and you can leave him a message at User talk:Haemo. Please note that I am not an admin. For more information on the deletion process, click User:Dlohcierekim/deletion.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

We're not clear why at the moment but Chaser transcluded it and it's off an running ?!?! See WP:RFA. Pedro :  Chat  16:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC) AIYEEEEE!. Well darn. Job stress plus wiki stress. Actually, that's why I logged on. To make sure this had not happened with me unawares. Got hung up responding to the issue above. Has anyone ever had there RfA run unawares?16:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can untransclude if you wish ? But better act fast ......... Pedro :  Chat  16:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's six votes already. Can we? Will it just make things worse???? Oh, let it run. If it sinks because I can't answer questions, then it wasn't meant to be. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best left now. I'm sure the community will understand. I'll be on over the weekend so if anyone asks any questions I'll drop a note on their talk page that they may have to wait and the reason why. I'm sure the community will see this conversation, realise that it's no-one's fault (I'm assuming Chaser saw the RfA, and that you'd signed acceptance, and just wanted to get it moving). I've never run into this siutation before, but untranscluding and striking votes is probably a bad idea, and escalating it to WP:BN or something isn't going to help Pedro :  Chat  16:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pedro. I'm over the shock now.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised when I saw it transcluded, so my support !vote came a bit late, sorry! Only 11th as a nominator? Shameful! *grin* I'll also be here during the weekend if something pops up, but I'm sure there won't be any problems. henrik•talk 17:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dloh. I'm sincerely sorry about transcluding your nomination early and for causing you any inconvenience for transcluding your RFA when your busy with real life. I saw you'd accepted and figured it was a situation like when someone I nominated forgot to accept (that you'd simply forgotten to transclude it). Anyway, I'm glad to see things are sliding into place OK, even if it's not at the time or in the way you preferred. With any luck at all, you'll have new tools to play with when you get back.

On a different note, the reason I noticed your RFA was because I watchlisted the empty page some time ago when I wanted to nominate you, but wasn't sure how to approach you about your other username. I think very highly of your contributions to Wikipedia. I'm glad to see so many others think the same, and that there are folks like Pedro and Henrik who approached you directly about the privacy issue, undoubtedly to the future benefit of the encyclopedia. Sincerely, chaser - t 10:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA - thanks[edit]

Thank you for your support in my request for adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of 38/1/0! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a tidy[edit]

[1] RfA? AfD I think you mean!! Pedro :  Chat  23:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for supporting me! Please find your thank you card here, should you wish to see it. I'm honored to have received your support. And best of luck in your current RfA. All the best, ~Eliz81(C) 02:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Official thanks, slightly delayed due to post-RfA crash (who knew?)[edit]

My RfA[edit]

Thank you for your participation in my RfA


re. ,[edit]

Yeah, you got it. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wotcha[edit]

Hi Buddy, how's it going? Up to keep a tab on the RFA ? Make sure nothing's gone wrong? That's dedication! Pedro :  Chat  13:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro. It may be commitment-- lots of people in the real world think I should be committed. ;) Really, it's just insomnia. Things seem to be going quite well on that front. I never imagined. Dlohcierekim 13:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! The midnight owl! Yes, RfA looks okay, I'm pleased the community agrees. You'll be brilliant as an admin. Pedro :  Chat  13:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be overly gushy or anything, but THANKS! for the nom to you and Henrik. Dlohcierekim 13:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can take too much credit - it's just you are a really good editor and will be a great admin, and I'm glad the community seems to agree. :) henrik•talk 13:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, rubbish. It was our fantastic nominations that did the trick :) Pedro :  Chat  13:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*smacks his head* doh, of course! What was I thinking? *grin* :-) henrik•talk 14:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Dlohcierekim 14:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I queried the opposer before seeing that this was behaviour repeated elsewhere; I hadn't gone to the user talk page, but I see it's all in hand. Thanks for the link. Unlikely to affect matters much... Regards, BencherliteTalk 15:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I would appreciate the feedback. I left a third note on her (finally read the name correctly) talk before I saw the other two. Dlohcierekim 15:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA[edit]

Please see my note regarding CastAStone and my nomination for adminship. I do not wish to embarass him, and spoke with him via AIM before nominating. -DavidJ710 (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, I consider myself fairly experienced at RfA, and I've never seen anything like it. I strongly urge you to ask him to withdraw. A failing RfA is a very unpleasant thing, and this one cannot succeed. Dlohcierekim 04:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re. Archived Talk Page[edit]

Why'd I delete my userpage? I dunno - I just got the urge to do so after reading Uncle G's first RfA! So yeah...I'm still around it's all good :) Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nburden's RFA[edit]

Thanks for the advice, and your consideration. I appreciate it, and hope to continue to have a positive impact on the encyclopedia. Nburden (T) 08:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Reply. Dlohcierekim 14:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==CastAStone's RFA==[edit]

I am really amazed at the level of dedication to this mission. I think that it is people like you that make Wikipedia one of the best resources we have for general, and at times, technical information. Please continue to zealously defend this resource, so that it might continue to meet the high standards we have come to expect from it. Respectfully yours, DavidJ710 (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't be here if we didn't love it. Dlohcierekim 17:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deepfriedokra/Archive_11&oldid=1150991448"