# User talk:Dgies/Archive 2

## Stress concentration in champagne bottles

I respectfully disagree I need a citation for the 30% strength calculation. An engineer with a Bachelors in Mechanical will be able to do this calculation. Stress concentrations are a well understood fenomena. Frank van Mierlo 23:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Below is a short introduction: Basic stress analysis calculations assume that the components are smooth with no irregularities.

In practice, many engineering components have changes in section and / or shape. Common examples are shoulders on shafts, oil holes, key ways and screw threads. A champagne battle is a lot like a shoulder on a shaft. Any discontinuity changes the stress distribution which causes local increase of stress referred to as stress concentration.

The stress concentration factor Kt is used to relate the actual maximum stress at the discontinuity to the nominal stress.

Kt = max direct stress / nominal direct stress

In information relating to stress concentration values care needs to be taken that the correct nominal stress is used.

The subscript 't' indicates that the stress concentration value is a theoretical calculation based only on the geometry of the component and discontinuity.

Some materials are not as sensitive to notches as implied by the theoretical stress concentration factor. For these materials a reduced value of Kt is used: Kf. In these materials the maximum stress is:

max. stress = Kf x nominal stress

The notch sensitivity, q, is defined as: q = (Kf - 1) / (Kt - 1) where q is between 0 and 1.

This equation shows that if q = 0, then Kf = 1 as the material has no sensitivity to notches. If q = 1, then Kf = Kt and the material is fully notch sensitive.

When designing, a frequent procedure is to first find Kt from the geometry of the component, then specify the material and look up the notch sensitivity, q, for the notch radius from a chart. Then by rearranging the above equation, determine Kf. Kf = 1 + q(Kt - 1).

Glass not being very ductile is very sensitive to stress concentrations.

Frank van Mierlo 04:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the rim is a weak point because of seams and stress concentrations at the notch. The problem is that you are quantifying that weakness without any citation, and in fact the equations you offer only demonstrate that notch sensitivity represents a reduction in strength relative to the regular elastic limit. They don't quantify the weakness so you just claim that q=0.7 and apply that without providing any evidence. You might be right, but you can't jump to conclusions without providing evidenct or citations. —Dgiest c 05:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
You make several good points, are you an engineeer? Frank van Mierlo 23:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
My degree was in physics. Also, note that I have moved your comment so that the thread of conversation is more readable. —Dgiest c 00:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?

Have updated the survey, containing all similar pages, perhaps you want to change your "vote"? AzaToth 00:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

## Sock puppet

I note you recently blocked an IP vandal under suspicion it was the same user. I think you were right, as I outlined here. Looks like someone's got a vendetta against Wikipedia. -- Kesh 02:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I marked them as sockpuppets on their talk pages and added them to the list, but I'm not an admin and haven't blocked anybody. —Dgiest c 03:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! An admin already blocked those accounts, I was just wondering how to mark them as potential socks of Cplot, since that's what they look like. Appreciate the help! -- Kesh 03:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page. --tjstrf talk 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

## Blocking 170.161.70.98

Actually, it is a soft block, which I denoted with "AO" (anonymous only). Thanks for watching out, though. --Kukini 01:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

## Hi

I reverted the editing of spam act beforehand. --Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions) 17:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

## Washington monument FPC

I've just gotten around to closing the Washington Monument nomination, but I need some more information on which version to promote. You opposed the original image due to the duplicate people. An edit has been created which removes this issue, so I was wondering whether this would change your opinion? Raven4x4x 07:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Still not really in favor of either version, but if it's getting promoted, I'll take the edited one. —Dgiest c 08:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

## Re: Image:George W. Bush public opinion polling.png

I tried to upload an svg version a while ago, but I'm unfamiliar with the format and the resulting file was corrupted. --tomf688 (talk - email) 22:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

## anon nuking tons of ELs and ignoring talk page warnings

I noticed that you reverted many of his edits. Thank you for that! Did you check all of them? — Sebastian 13:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted all which were the most recent change and didn't seem to make any other significant (helpful) change. This was probably 80% or so of the spree. —Dgiest c 16:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your effort! — Sebastian 03:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

## Timbaland

After you deleted it claiming slashdot is not a RS, the same user that put it in, User:O^O put it back in. I have since deleted and if he does it again, I plan to report him for the 3RR rule. I think we may need to get an arbutitrayer (? I hope you know what I mean) on this, but I think no artist official comment, not Wikipedian worthy.--WhereAmI 22:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

He edited in again, this time with a small translation.--WhereAmI 22:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw it. That translation is completely inadequate for judging whether not this as a RS. If could just be some Finnish site saying "this was posted to digg". I have left him a 3RR warning. If he does it again, you can request a 24 hour block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. —Dgiest c 22:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

### My take

I'm not O_O, but I came to this site to write my own article. If I create a website with all the files (including the cross-mixes) permanently available, will you leave the link intact? It's important information, and it's not the wikipedia thing to do to remove such. It's an ongoing controversy, and thousands of people are aware. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.68.80.219 (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

What you're basically asking (translated into Wiki-ese) is: "If I publish a site of my own original research, making allegations against a real living person, can I cite that in their article?" There are several problems with this: Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia, so posting it on a 3rd party site and linking to it brings up the question of reliable sources. You may be acting in good faith, and not attempting to deceive, but you personally are not considered a reliable source for the purpose of citing in an article unless you are a noted expert in music copyright infringement. Furthermore, the biographies of living persons policy says we must have very high standards of proof for posting allegations against living persons. If the allegations are true, better sources will eventually come into existence. Until then, please just wait. —Dgiest c 00:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The research posted was published on the YouTube site. That is not an example of "original research". ebeeson
It is the original research of whoever made the video. And because they are not a recognized copyright expert or a first party to the dispute, they do not meet the definition of a "reliable source". —Dgiest c 03:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Why do you get to define the rules of what research is valid and what is not? Are you enough of an expert in music copyright infringement to say who's work in that field is allowed on Wikipedia? ebeeson
We should follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. They suggest research should either be "Scholarly", as in published in a academic journal, or if "Non-Scholarly", should demonstrate expertise and editorial oversight. YouTube is zero editorial oversight, and I have seen no claims that the person who made the video is an expert in the field. —Dgiest c 03:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070119-8659.html Is this on the master list of "wiki approved sources"? Where can I find a copy of the approved sources list? ebeeson
There's no "master list". Editors are simply expected to exercise good judgment. Think about it as if you were writing an academic paper on the subject: What sources would you feel confident citing? A blog? An IRC transcript? Look for sources which have editorial oversight and some expertise in the field. Is this explanation satisfactory to you? —Dgiest c 07:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not. Because facts are facts, it doesn't matter the source, as long as they're true. ebeeson
Maybe you should sit down and really read WP:V and WP:RS. Something can be an absolutely true fact, but if it can't be verified by a reliable source, it's still just one editor's word against another's. Truth is the goal, but reliable sources are the Wikipedia way of making sure we're getting truth and not rumor. —Dgiest c 17:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

## Humorously named people

I noticed that the Category you created, "Humorously named people", is likely headed for deletion. I understand that categories like this take quite some time to develop and flesh out, yet this particular one appears to be unwelcome at Wikipedia, unless I'm misunderstanding the argument. I hope that you will continue your work here at Wikipedia. However, just so you know, there are also other wikis out there that might very well welcome such a Category project as yours. You might start by looking at Wikia.com, Centiare.com, or PBwiki.com. If you feel that this message is too spammy, you are welcome to delete it from your discussion page. --JossBuckle Swami 13:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, but I'm a fairly experienced editor and a veteran of the XfD process so I won't take it too personally. —Dgiest c 15:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

## Sorry

Original post

Hey man, it's just that the "Phat Phuc Noodle Bar" image is being questioned, and since it is such a perfect image, I wanted to deflect attention from it. I'll make you a deal - we'll restore the "What the pho?" restaurants in two days if you go onto the talk page and vote in support of keeping the image. Or not. But come on, help me out!

Anyway, uncool thing to do, sorry for that. Zweifel 07:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

AAAh -- okay, I'll cut and paste this onto my talk page.Zweifel 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

## Attacks

Please do not make personal attacks on other people or bots as you did on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Cbrown1023 23:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

From User talk:Cbrown1023
A bot is not a person, so I think it's entirely reasonable to call it dumb when it does something dumb, like archive a request as "completed" when it fails to comprehend the logic in the request. I know all about WP:NPA and I was quite polite on the bot author's page. I don't think WP:NPA applies to things which are not persons. Am I missing something?
Oh come on! I think calling a bot (which made a mistake) dumb is pretty reasonable. A bot is not a person! —Dgiest c 23:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Imagine a newbie coming by and seeing that, what would they think? How are they supposed to know bots are not really people? Calling a bot stupid is like calling its creator stupid becasue it is created and maintained by them, if you comment about the bot, you also comment about the creator. You should, as a good editor, set an example for new and existings users. If you know all about WP:NPA, then you should know "comment on the content, not on the contributor", that was a violation of it, no matter who it was directed towards. Cbrown1023 23:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I will readily admit it's not setting a good example for new users. But the bot's name is VoABot so it should be obvious I was not talking to a person. Also, a bot is just source code, which is content, so saying a bot is dumb is tantamount to saying there is an error in it's code/content. If you had just said "Don't be rude to bots, it'll give newbies the wrong idea", this would be a non-issue, but you left a template warning about no personal attacks, which suggested to me that you didn't really understand the situation and left me feeling attacked. —Dgiest c 00:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

## RFP

Well, admin backlogs are shown when we (admins) look at our watchlist. If you really want admin attention, go to WP:AN, and you'll probably find a few people who will take care of the situation fast.

By the way, we know VoABot is not perfect, and it does mistakenly archive some unprocessed requests. That's why I usually go back and check the whole page to see if all requests have been processed, just in case the bot made a mistake. Nishkid64 17:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

## Assistance required

Could you please help me out with this template I am trying to create? What I want to do is to make all the fields (except for {{{name}}}) optional; that is if a parameter is left blank its table row does not appear.

I've been trying this for days, but for some reason whenever two or more parameters beneath each other are left blank when it is called, the whole table stretches out and looks ugly. This has got me stumped. The template in question is at User:Wykebjs/Sandbox.

If you can find the time to help I would be very thankful. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 22:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I made the change you requested for the "other_names" parameter to User:Wykebjs/Sandbox2. You should be able to do the rest. —Dgiest c 22:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Dgies, although the stretching cells problem hasn't gone. If you look at the template now, you will see the same kind of problem I've been having.
When {{{population_total}}} and {{{population_density}}}, two parameters adjacent to each other, are left blank then the cells get stretched taller. It gets worse when three or more adjacent fields are blank.
Hopefully you'll be able to see what I'm doing wrong. Thanks again. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 22:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
NM, got it fixed now. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 23:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

## Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 20:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

## Skyview High School

I'll say that while Skyview High School (Thornton, Colorado) seems to be relatively non-notable despite everyone's best efforts to prove notability, you have quite an uphill battle in regards to it since it's a school. In fact, I don't know if you're aware of it or not, but Skyview was the subject of an AfD last May, which resulted in a result of "keep". Good luck to you in pursuing deletion of a somewhat controversial article that (in my opinion) needs to be put out of its misery, but I don't see it happening. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

## Personal user information

Can you remove the information from his edit history also, considering the age? KP Botany 00:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That's much harder. There are many revisions with this info, and "removing" a previous edit (as opposed to simply reverting) requires "oversight" permission, of which there are only a handful of users. I will explain the issue at WP:ANI and let them worry about it. —Dgiest c 01:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks for catching it and being concerned. KP Botany 02:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I honestly have no idea how that happened. I can see how that would be hard to believe. All I was doing was endorsing a comment. I see that you also made that same typo and you changed it from deleted to restored at 16:49 (my time), which is the same time I edited the page. I did not get an edit conflict so I'm guessing it was a glitch with the MediaWiki software. Sorry for the confusion. And honestly, I don't appreciate the accusational tone but I'm hoping I was able to clear the issue.↔NMajdantalk 23:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I hope my explanation sounds plausible as it is the best I have.↔NMajdantalk 03:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

## Image:Bear McCreary.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bear McCreary.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 that provides substantially the same information. 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}}`, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

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. Bob 15:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

## Rei-bot

Hi,

The reason in this edition, is not a mistake of the bot. It de:Seelöwe is a disambig and the en:Sea Lion isn't, for this motive m:pywikipediabot it removed the interwiki, they are not the similar.--Rei-artur 19:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

## Chairboy RFC

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Chairboy is currently up for deletion over a dispute as to whether two or three editors have certified the concerns as valid. You comments there indicate agreement with the concerns. You may wish to "sign" at the place provided under User:Shaundakulbara's comments. Thanks. House of Scandal 11:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree only in the most peripheral way with one of those complaints. This RfC seems vindictive and should be rejected. —Dgiest c 17:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

## Revert editing

I'm a 3 day old Newbie. How did you revert 3 vandal edits on Saddam Hussein simultaneously? Thanks. RadiantRay 18:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You can open the history and see the list of versions. Then click on the last good version to view it. Then click edit. It will show a warning that you are editing an old version. That's OK. Then save tat version with an edit summary which says you are reverting, like "revert", "rv vandalism", "rvv", etc. —Dgiest c 19:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

## ip vandal

I reblocked for a week. For some reason I had associated him with a school vandal, who I only want to give 24 hours for, but it shows no indication of being one, so I changed it to a week. SWATJester On Belay! 20:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

## Timeline

Perhpas resolved request should be archived immediatley - and we can put a note on the requestor's talk page that it has been created and you can ask questions on templates talk page (hey ... that note could be a template!) - I mean users who are not the requestor but were interested could just look up at the "recently archived templates" section. I'm pretty sure you said a month for unresolved- and that sounds pretty reasonable - but definitley no more than that.Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 20:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't see the harm in leaving resolved requests up for a little while unless the page becomes popular enough that we get scores of them per week. Leaving them up is convenient for the requestor and will save us from "What happened to my request?" messages. —Dgiest c 20:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey you seem to know a lore more than I do about templates - so would you mind helping me out. I have this one called Template:EasyLinkT - but I'm having some difficulties with the only conditional I have. I'd really appreciate any help you can give.Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 21:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
You are trying to recreate a template which already exists: {{tl}} does exactly what you want. I suggest you put {{db-author}} on your copy. —Dgiest c 21:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: For links to userspace templates, you want {{tlu}}. —Dgiest c 21:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh ok, in that case could you just tell me what I had done wrong, I will put up the speedy right after.Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 21:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
You are not using `#if` correctly. Your construct `#if: {{{2|y}}}|Template:` says "Take variable 2, or if missing, the value "y". If this evaluates to true, insert the text "Template:". Since `#if` evaluates to true for any non-empty text, "n" is true. Please see the help page for parser functions at meta:ParserFunctions#if. —Dgiest c 21:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Ahh I gotcha - k i'll put the tag upDaniel()Folsom T|C|U 22:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
K I put the tag up - thank you very much - although it seems like there is a way to do that (if the second parameter is two) - I mean I guess I could've swapped #ifexist: tags in there - but hey. Oh and sorry about the whole there's another template thing - I'm having a bad day.Daniel()Folsom T|C|U
No problem. Read up on parser functions more. It's entirely possible to do what you were trying, but there are existing templates for your idea. —Dgiest c 22:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow, so I just had another idea for archiving RTs. Maybe this would make things too complicated - but the goal is to have a easy start page. Ok, so you know how currently users will go to the page and portentially be kidna overwhellmed at all of the text - I'm thinking that maybe we should auto-archive everything by using Werdnabot (where you can say archive after 3,4,5 ... days) and put them into a page called "to be categorized" or something. This way we can have a system that tells people exactly what should/shouldn't be archived (anything that hadn't been archived by Werdnabot stays) and it makes it less daunting- what do you think?Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 20:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok for some reason I'm having a strange issue on my watchlist - could you respond on my talk page - sorry for the inconvienience ...Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
True but at the same time it could be a prevention measure (in regards to some kind of surge)Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 22:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I know I'm probably killing you with all these suggestions - but another thought entered my mind. The archive pages themselves will eventually grow a huge amount- should we perhaps archive them by year somehow? - because eventually scrolling down to the end of the page will be crazyDaniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/ 03:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely someday. If we get very heavy volume we could move to a much more automated system like they use at WP:AFC, but right now I don't think its worth the extra complexity. —Dgiest c 04:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

## Feel Alive

May i ask why you reversed my changes to the article in the title? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.105.102.131 (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

I was quickly going through new edits looking for bad ones, and yours caught my eye because it was a review not by a major music reviewer and had a malformed citation format. In retrospect, I probably should have performed cleanup, not reverting. Sorry. —Dgiest c 04:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
np.. i added it again. i dunno how to add a citation correctly tho, so if u want u can add it, i included the link where i got the info.

Hey there. I'm working on a conditional template for the first time (mostly copy/pasting together other peoples work as I learn). I'm trying to insert an #ifeq condition into a table to define the cell colour, and somewhere it seems to be blowing up. If I manually put either of the colours in there, everything seems to work, but when I make it a condition it blows up. You can see my work at User:Maelwys\afc top for the template, and User:Maelwys\afc test for a page using it both ways (with and without the proper variable, so see the two results). If you could take a few minutes to look at it, I'd really appreciate it. I'm probably just making a simple mistake, but can't find enough documentation on the #ifeq condition or how it interacts with other formatting to figure it out myself. Thanks for any help/advice you can offer! --Maelwys 15:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see your template and your test case, but I don't see the problem. Your template is producing either a grey or green AfC cell depending on if varaible 1 equals "accept". Isn't that what you want? —Dgiest c 17:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the part that shows initially (while compressed) is also supposed to be either green or red, instead of blue. If I replace the first #ifeq statement with either of the possible results of it, I see it in either green or red. But when the ifeq is there, it's apparantly reading neither result because it shows up in blue instead. So I'm assuming that the first statment is parsed incorrectly or something? --Maelwys 19:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see. You had an extraneous `;"` attatched to the `#ifeq` block that was messing up the styling. Is everything satisfactory now? —Dgiest c 20:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Perfect! Thanks for your help! --Maelwys 20:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

## Religion texts

Hey should I remove jewish muslim christian texts etc from religious texts since they are subcategories of abrahamic texts

see Category:Abrahamic texts and Category:Religious texts

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Java7837 (talkcontribs)

In general, no. If something is placed in Category:Christian texts, it is automatically considered to be in a subcategory of Category:Abrahamic texts and Category:Religious texts. This is a good thing. What you don't want is for an article to have something like
```[[Category:Abrahamic texts]]
[[Category:Religious texts]]
[[Category:Christian texts]]
```
at the bottom because then it is being placed bothin top-level category, and a subcategory, which doesn't make sense. There should be only one listing, for the most specific subcategory. See WP:CAT for guidelines. —Dgiest c 23:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
that is not what i was asking the rastafarian jewish christian and islamic texts categories are listed under both abrahamic texts and religious texts should i remove the category religious texts from them is what i was asking
Oh well that's a very similar issue. For example: Category:Christian texts is a category, which has articles as members. Category:Christian texts itself is a member (and therefore a subcategory) of Category:Abrahamic texts. Category:Abrahamic texts is a member and subcategory of Category:Religious texts. It's not duplicate categories you are seeing, its just how subcategories are supposed to work. It doesn't look like you should change anything. —Dgiest c 23:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

## Sonic and the Secret Rings

Reverting my edits was completely unneccessary as the only things I was in the process of editing were the references so they don't look like garbage. - 137.186.150.111 05:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I caused you trouble, but I can't predict the future and had no indication this is a work in progress. All I had to go on was seeing them disappear with no edit summary to explain it. Please use an edit summary and use the "Show preview" button to avoid these misunderstandings. —Dgiest c 05:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Right, sorry. Regarding the "valid content", I believe I only removed the references in the Release Dates as it was redundant with the information in the opening paragraph.
Meh. I suppose if I'm going to redo all the references I might as well log in. - 137.186.150.111 05:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Well that's one way to look less like a vandal, but edit summaries are A Good Thing. —Dgiest c 05:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

## ru:Калифорнийская Золотая Лихорадка

Hi! And it was the machine translation? By the way, be registered at us, in Russian Wiki!:)--Afinogenoff 08:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be, I don't know. I can almost understand the Cyrillic alphabet but otherwise speak no Russian. —Dgiest c 08:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
хе=хе :-) As in any way registered user to be better, than anonimys.--Afinogenoff 08:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

## Please join the Talk:R68 (New York City Subway car) discussion.

I've posted a prompt for consensus editing and cooperation on the talk page, please join and try to work towards a solution. ThuranX 03:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

## how did you do that?

how the heck did you move THAT fast to add the other socks befoer I could? ThuranX 04:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a black belt in vandal whacking. That, and I had their talk pages watchlisted. —Dgiest c 05:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

## Poland Nav Box

We like to keep every Nav Box the same color and style. The color should be lightsteelblue and their should be a flag to the right of the inside of the box. It's just standard procedure.--Golich17 17:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

## Needing a new system for archived requested tempaltes

So I know we've kind of discussed this before, but I was scrolling through the archived templates in order to get the link for the one I just archived - and it's starting to get pretty rediculous. I think that we should create a system simmilar to the one that one of the missing citation backlog pages do. See the contents of this page. What we could do is have a organization system, that will allow clearing the page to be easiest for users, and then later peopel can go back and organize them. For example (The request for existing tempaltes needs to be renamed - that gets confusing, because some could think it means a request to update an existing template- I take it as a request that was since the template is existing - what I have now is a bad alternative, but it's a start):

 All Old Request Templates created or updated (Unorganized) Template Denied because of Current Existance (Unorganized) Request Closed without Template A B ... A B ... A B ...

What do you think? I mean frankly, if we don't do something soon it's going to be hell trying to save the archive - I just think we should think long term here.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with this?) 22:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

One problem I see is that a lot of requests don't really have a good title so sorting them by title (as opposed to chronological) is sort of meaningless. How would you place a request titled "Display spelling based on browser" which resulted in no template being modified, created, or suggested? If you feel the need for more organization, how about something a bit more like WP:AFC? —Dgiest c 22:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh you mean by date? That could work - although obviously ours wouldn't be quite as frequent - perhaps archived by month/week as opposed to day? OMG IDEA! in the subsections (as in "Templates created or updated") - we could use Werdna's bot that archives every x number of days! I'm willing to attempt to set all that up overnight if you want me to.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with this?) 22:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead. If you pick werdnabot I suggest only monthly archiving. —Dgiest c 22:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
So something like this?
 All Request All Old Request (Using Werdna bot) Templates created or updated (Unorganized) Template Denied because of Current Existance (Unorganized) Request Closed without Template (Unorganized 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 Month 1(Using Werdna bot) Month ...(Using Werdna bot) Month 1(Using Werdna bot) Month ...(Using Werdna bot) Month 1(Using Werdna bot) Month ...(Using Werdna bot) Month 1(Using Werdna bot) Month ...(Using Werdna bot) Month 1(Using Werdna bot) Month ...(Using Werdna bot) Month 1(Using Werdna bot) Month ...(Using Werdna bot)

Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with this?) 22:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If that looks ok to you I will start tonight (I have to do a few things outside WP first - but it will def. be up by tommorow)Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with this?) 22:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the color scheme it looks good. Can you swap it for the blues and greys seen on most of Wikipedia? —Dgiest c 22:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
What color scheme? the table was just to show you what I was thinking...Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with this?) 04:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

## OMG I FINISHED

holy crap, sorry for the caps but I had no idea that the above would take me so long - the archives were so out of order!!!!!! Ok fine, it only took me 2 hours, but still ... it felt like a longer time...Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with this?) 06:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Spiffy; thanks. The bot should make maintenance simpler from here on out. —Dgiest c 06:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 The Working Man's Barnstar So it took me a while to realize it, but going over all of the requested templates yesterday, I realized just how much you've really helped people out so many times, I mean it's crazy - that's really the only word for it. Thusly, I truly believe that you deserve this Barnstar, it's people like you that really keep projects like that going. Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?) 00:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey thanks. You're no slouch yourself. —Dgiest c 03:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

## Vote

Why did you remove my vote? Hunted by A.K.G. 21:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just restored it. A vote by an extremely new user in an RfA (or anything voting-like) makes it look like the user might not actually be a new user at all, but rather a sockpuppet. If you are not one I'm sorry for causing offense. Nevertheless, the instructions at WP:RFA do warn that votes by very new users may be given less weight. —Dgiest c 21:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Still, it soesn't need said that I am new. Hunted by A.K.G. 21:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
A brand new user commenting in an RfA is fairly unusual activity for a regular user. Most people start out editing articles. When a brand new user joins a vote as their second edit ever, it looks pretty suspicious. I think it is fair to point out suspicious activity to others and let them decide. If you are not a sockpuppet, just realize that as a total newcomer to Wikipedia, your opinions in some policy-related matters may be given less weight because it is assumed you are not experienced in dealing with policy. —Dgiest c 21:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I have a feeling about who this is, and I don't like it, but the fact that they voted for me makes me doubt my suspicions. Anyway, I have a strange feeling about this. -- The Hybrid 21:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Who do you think I am?Hunted by A.K.G. 21:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Note:I now have over 10 edits. Hunted by A.K.G. 22:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
A very real possibility, but Tree63 isn't exactly the kind of page this person would edit. It is probably someone else, but I still feel uneasy about this. -- The Hybrid 22:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of that puppeteer. Hmmm, but why would he vote for me? I find that very strange. Oh well, at least it’s sorted out. Thanks for letting me know, -- The Hybrid 22:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

## what?

You called me a sockpuppet. WITW is that for? Hunted by A.K.G. 23:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I said you might be a sockpuppet because your editing pattern is very suspicious for a new user. Can you offer an explanation why you are editing these policy pages most new users have never heard of? —Dgiest c 23:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: User was later blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Zbl. —Dgiest c 06:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

## DYK

 On February 28, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Drascombe, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks Dgies. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dgies and thank you for contacting me. Templates are not my area of expertise, but I can surely help you with vandalfight, page protection and deletion procedures. I'll review your contributions later and tell you what I think of your performance in these areas. :-) Regards, Húsönd 20:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have also worked in RfD, MfD and TfD before if these are more familiar to you. —Dgiest c 21:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmm... You look ready right now. Don't know if you wanted to wait or have your "coaches" nominate you... Grandmasterka 21:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

## yes

it would be an honor & a Privilege to have this done, so yes sr I would like that if you dont mind!--Lolicon3043910 13:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I realize you're only doing what you think is helpful, but I wonder if the "adoption" of User:Saikano might not do more harm than good. It looks to me like this editor lacks the language skills and maturity to be useful contributor, so it may be best if he moves on. He seems to think wikipedia is about chatting and making friends, not making an encyclopedia, so I'm concerned that this adoption will only reinforce his mistaken beliefs. Friday (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming they are fairly young and are currently using Wikipedia the same way they have used other forums in the past. If I can change that behavior, great. If not, there are plenty of ways to deal with problematic editors. —Dgiest c 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I hope this means you'll be keeping an eye on him and deleting/reverting his unhelpful edits. Friday (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll do what I can without being too confrontational. —Dgiest c 18:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I just left him a message explaining why I blocked him. So far his response is nonsensical, which reinforces my belief that he lacks sufficient competence to edit. But, if you can explain things to him in a way he can understand, please do. Friday (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Their contribs to the article Saikano actually look sane (if inexperienced). Maybe a "time out" will be corrective. —Dgiest c 19:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there have been a handful of good faith (but not necessarily helpful) edits to Saikano. The problem is the lack of sane responses and a willful disregard for other editors' concerns. Leebo86 19:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Dgies, you may want to read User_talk:Ashibaka#Regarding_User:Saikano... Given some of his edits, I think offering "adoption" is the last thing you should be getting yourself into. Friday (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

## Backlog on TFD

The idea of the backlog notice on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion was to have someone take care of the debate. Most people are uncomfortable about a tag being on a page, which shouldn't be taken advantage of in mainspace really, but project space seems fine. I suppose I'll post something at WP:AN next time, or just be patient.... yawn. Happy editing, GracenotesT § 20:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you put the adminbacklog notice onto that day's log. Oh well, it's still in the category, I guess. (Then again, no reason why an admin should pay attention to this more than anything else.) GracenotesT § 20:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I realized it was best to target the notice as narrowly as possible, so I <noinclude>ed it to not tag the top level TfD page. There's just a single debate which is about 3 weeks old. —Dgiest c 21:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

## DYK

 On 1 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hernando Arias de Saavedra, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Yomanganitalk 23:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

## Re: RfD

Thanks for your notice. I was not aware of WP:REDIRECT and its full policies. I see now that my redirects should not have been used in that particular case though I have found several examples of similiar uses. I had the redirects deleted under WP:SPEEDY as the major contributor and creator requesting deletion. Again, I appreciate the tip and notice. Happy editing. =) Mkdwtalk 00:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

## Coaching

Hello again Dgies. As promised, I reviewed your contributions and I must say that you are apparently fit for adminship. However, I have a few reservations, and suggest that you delay your request for adminship at least a couple of weeks. In that time, here's what I suggest:

• Try to bring your edit summary usage for minor edits to 100%.
• Increase your vandalfight, you're already a very good fighter, but for other users to notice your work you often have to be an outstanding vandalfighter.
• Participate in WP:XFD more often, you need to show that you are aware of Wikipedia's deletion criteria, especially WP:CSD.
• Avoid doing this. One warning at a time, please. :-)

I guess this is it. If you follow these recommendations, I hereby offer myself to nominate you in a couple of weeks time (should you require a nominator, that is). As a minor suggestion, perhaps I could also tell that I believe that your chances of being noticed by other users will increase if you have a signature that stands out. Doesn't have to be a weird creation, but if you add some color/bold type to your signature, other users will be able to recognize it when they see it on your RfA, and remember that they've been seeing some good work coming from you. Works for me, I always remember users by their signature. I hope this helped. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 15:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

zzz...
By the way, after looking at the times you've been editing Wikipedia on March 1, I wonder if you've been getting an adequate sleep lately. Have some rest! :-) Húsönd 15:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 The Tireless Contributor Barnstar Stop editing Wikipedia and get some sleep for a change! :-) Regards, Húsönd 15:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, even if you see that a user has a series of vandalism edits for which they have not been warned for, you just need to place one warning (not two or more for each edit). Generally, this is what I do:

• as first warning (user received no warnings in the past 24 hours, or has no warnings at all):
• {{test1}} - if you're not sure if the user is vandalizing, they could be just testing.
• {{test2}} - if it's obvious vandalism.
• {{bv}} - the vandalism is obvious and it's severe (I use this one particularly if I notice that the user has vandalized more than once without having been warned).
• {{test4im}} - extreme vandalism, "this is the only warning you will receive".
• escalating warnings:
• {{test3}} - user has vandalized after been warned with a {{test2}}.
• {{test4}} - user has vandalized after been warned with a {{test3}} or {{bv}}.
• When to report to WP:AIV:
• User has vandalized after a {{test4}} or {{test4im}}.
• User has vandalized in quite a severe way after a {{test3}} or {{bv}}.

I hope this helps. :-) Regards, Húsönd 18:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

## DYK

 Did you know? was updated. On 4 March, 2007, a fact from the article Nagarakretagama, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

You reworded the hook, which earns one in my book --BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

emm everything, like how to make them!! thanks Ellez 17:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

## Template Idea

As you tend to frequent WP:RT, I thought I would ask you this directly. I posted a question on RT and the help desk about templates for clarifying ambiguous dating ("recently", "soon", etc). So far, no one has been able to find a template that specifically addresses this. The best suggestions are Recentism (a different concept) and Update after (also a different concept). Would you have any objection to me creating some specific templates about this? One for the top of a page and another for specific sentences, like [clarify]. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

For specific sentences, I think we can just use {{unclear}}. For entire articles needing more specific dates, it sounds reasonable. I suggest you use {{Confusing}} or {{Cleanup}} as a guide. —dgiestc 23:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

## Re. Questions for you

Good you told me about your coaching subpage. I'll have a closer look shortly. :-) Regards, Húsönd 20:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How could you possibly cite sources for examples? It will not get vandalized much because it has been semi-protected. If it is vandalized, we will change it back. I do not think there should be 20 examples, but maybe 4 or 5. It would be good ones that the Wikipedia community agrees on. It wouldn't hurt. Randomfrenchie 01:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. I am copying this message onto the talk page of the article.

Replied: Talk:Your mom#Examples_2 03:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

## Re: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Maviswwc

Hi Dgies, did you go to WP:RFPP? If you get the page semi-protected, that means that IPs can't edit, so that will cut down on some of the reverting. It might even get the editor to talk to you, who knows? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

## User page

Why did you just nominate my user page for deletion? I'm pretty sure that I haven't included too much personal information about myself, and it's surely quite unlike myspace. The only thing that I think could be considered social networking is the "About Me" section, but otherwise nothing is overly social. The "Expertise" section is merely to find users who need help with that specific subject, and I can only think of a few people that don't have a "Userbox" or "Awards" section. The user page service is merely to help other users that don't have Wiki-markup skills. Could you please tell me your reasoning? Thank you. 01:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied here 02:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

## Jeremy Griffith page

I'm making required edits as per the deletion notice. Why do you revert them? thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FishoFish (talkcontribs).

Replied

## A bit garish

Dgies, Thanks for your note. I'm using Safari (browser) and the way it renders your sig it is about 3/4ths as large as User:RyGuy's (which is ridiculously too large imho). Larger sigs like that are only bothersome when through their larger size they stick out in such an unbalanced way on talk pages. Also I know that many people find sigs that are larger than standard text annoying which just gives all of us sig users a bad name :-S. (Netscott) 02:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied here

## CSD on FOFL (Internet Slang)

I disagree with the fact that it looked incoherent. I read through it before editing it and there was two or three misspellings that were missing a letter but that does not make an article incoherent babble, it just makes you assume that the original author is young and ignorant. However I can not disagree with you in saying that it looks like something made up in school one day. I'm still new to the wiki and hadn't read about that yet. I agree now that it should be deleted and will record that on the AfD. SyBerWoLff 13:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello; I noticed in your talk summary on the re-created FOFL article that you said, "G4 doesn't apply for speedied things even if they were being debated in afd at the time." I don't think that is technically accurate. According to the speedy deletion template, "Speedily deleted articles are not automatically eligible for this criterion. Check the deletion log for prior deletion rationales." In other words, they may be. And if you check the deletion log, this article was previously deleted for "nonsense," which I think would warrant a speedy re-deletion unless something more substantial were added to it. If I am misreading the policy, let me know. Zahakiel 17:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
From WP:CSD#G4 "This clause does not apply ... if the prior deletions were proposed or speedy deletions, although in this last case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy deletion criteria, may apply." So we can't G4 it, though we can try G1. I think it's sort of borderline for G1 and there is already an AfD. —dgiestc 17:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Gotcha, thanks. The tag itself wasn't as unambiguous. Zahakiel 18:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

From: User_talk:Quinlanfan2#Your_RfA

oh, no that is my friend. he does not get on that much but he has an account on several wikis. he just supports me when i run for adminship. we live in twi different states. thanks, Quinlanfan2 17:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

## Re:Ignore Saikano

You're right, I'm just indulging his desire to chat. Will do. Leebo T/C 19:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

## Thank You

Hey, Dgies! Thanks for the reward. Just to let you know, I don't transclude my signature anymore (and haven't for a while) so I think that the signature page can be deleted at my request. Thanks again for the reward, you are a really nice Wikipedian, and I'll be sure to get through this event with some new knowledge. Have a nice day! 21:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

## WP:MFD

Dgies, I've speedily closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cremepuff222, in various states, with an closing note, I hope this will be satisfactory for you. — xaosflux Talk 03:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That looks like an appropriate resolution. —dgiestc 03:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

## RE Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cremepuff222

OK, I apologise for my tone, and admit that "personal attack" was a bit strong. I would retract my statement on the MfD, but it's been closed already. I was just annoyed at the recent spate of MfDs on user pages and subpages - that isn't really your fault, as you're not responsible for any of the other nominations, so I admit I was a little unfair to you. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

## One thing that got left out of Template:Infobox oils

Great work on Template:Infobox oils. One thing that got left out, though – I wanted a section at the end with a leading line and header text (like at "Compostion" or "Properties") That reads "References" where the sources for the info in the infobox could be added in "ref" format. I couldn't figure out how to add such a section myself. Could you add this?

Thanks – Peter G Werner 17:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

## WT:RFA

Your changes are deleting huge sections from other parts of the page. Dragons flight 18:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, accident. I fixed the threading on my comment, then you made a bunch of changes, wiping mine, then I tried to put mine back but in the process stomped all your changes. It seems you have put everything where it belongs now. —dgiestc 18:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
No, your original fix wiped out a bunch of comments as well. Dragons flight 18:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, you're right. How the hell did that happen? —dgiestc 18:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

## Keep an eye?

Hey. I see you are on the CVU, and are "on shift" at the moment. I'm going to bed, but my userpage was vandalised by , because I gave his "friend" a warning. Could you keep an eye out for them? Thanks. -- Reaper X 05:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Took him to AIV, got blocked. —dgiestc 05:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers. -- Reaper X 14:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Iam not against that but in recent weeks I have found out that its editors that contribute to Wikipedia as a whole and those that take part in Wikipedia discussions are the most successful candidates and pliz I dont judge people because this is the first time I had opposed an Editor with over 3000 Edits just because I thought maybe he needed to do a lot more work on Wikipedia to actually have a chance of succeeding.--Cometstyles 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

## Response.

My apologies; I've never actually seen the AIV invalid template before, and I thought that if someone received one, it meant that they had listed someone in bad faith. I am sorry. Acalamari 23:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it's easy to take things the wrong way over the net. —dgiestc 23:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

## Paul Todd and Dave Mac

Hi. I strongly believe that any official member of such a hugely popular band should be included in their history and have their own page. Iron Maiden is one of the top selling and grossing acts in the world. These members are discussed in their DVD biographies and the band even did photo sessions with them. It makes no sense for them to be deleted. I know if I was was scanning the various Maiden band members, I'd be very disappointed to see two names I'd like to know more about, but they have no links. Each member has a story, and I feel they should be included. Leper Messiah 33 22:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how important they are, it is improper of you to remove the AfD notice while the article is still being debated. Make your case at the deletion page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Todd and try to convince others of your reasoning. —dgiestc 22:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

## Hi

Are you stalking me? ;-) —dgiestc 22:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

heheh.. stalking... well, no.... but maybe yes, depending on your definition. I am using your contributions for my list of articles to use for the User:Nickj/Can We Link It link suggestion tool. It is faster than clicking the "random article" link. Does it bother you? I can go to somebody elses contribs... Jerry 22:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually I am down far enough on yours that I have to use the scrollbar... so I'm jumping off anyway. Cheers! Jerry 22:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

## Happy Holiday!

 This user would like to wish you a happy St. Patrick's Day.

Trampton 13:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

## My RfA

Hi Dgies. Thank you for supporting my RfA. Rest assured that I heard every voice loud and clear during the discussion, and will strive to use the mop carefully and responsibly. Please don't hesitate to give me constructive criticism anytime. Xiner (talk, email) 14:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

## Thanks!

Yeah, I find it especially ironic that my account was promoted literally minutes after reporting an admin backlog. Natalie 23:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

## Doh!

My mistake! I don't know how I missed that. Thanks for pointing it out to me so I don't make the same mistake again. CodeWeasel 01:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

## Thanks!

OK, never mind. Thanks for telling me!! Tellyaddict 17:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

## Thanks

for reverting vandalism to my user page. Natalie 04:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

## What are you doing!

Why are you changing the Tom picture, basically all of the other Lost pictures on here are a high resolution! I have had enough of your meddling, if you continue to make hypocritical excuses about the things I do on here (including the pictures I upload), I will have no choice but to nominate you for a ban. -- SilvaStorm

Please tell me what was hypocritical. Have I committed a copyright violation I am not aware of? Also, you should assume good faith about other's actions. I'm simply trying to keep Wikipedia compliant with copyright law. —dgiestc 10:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't have anything against you, not at all, I am just wondering why the hi-res picture I uploaded was deleted when a lot of the other Lost pictures are as well. It just doesn't seem fair... -- SilvaStorm
Just because we have some copyright infringements doesn't mean we should let others slide. Ideally someone would go through all of those and replace them with lower resolution versions to comply with fair use. I tagged yours because in our discussions, I noticed you feuding with another editor over this issue and decided to take a look. —dgiestc 17:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I added some additional questions for your admin coaching programme. I will try to see if I can find some more. Some of the questions are situations that once happened before or could happen in future. Some of these are also to test your ability on policies and guidelines. BTW, you are a good editor and you have lots of DYKs. Keep it up. Terence 05:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

## Jo Ho Yo

Dgies, I apologize for my rash unsourced statements about Yoder, I did not intend to vandalize his entry. I have reedited the page with sourcable material, but I do not know how to source it properly. If you could help me out that would be great. In addition my IP number is for about 300 people and that means other contributions/vandalism could be from a number of people. The bibliographic information for my new statements follows. Sorry for all the confusion.

"Third, beginning in 1992 John endured the most painful years of his life (as, no doubt, his wife did, too). In June of 1992 Yoder was put under the discipline of the Indiana-Michigan Conference of the Mennonite Church for allegations of sexual misconduct. Since I was relatively close to John at this time, I knew it was very painful for him. I and other of John's friends encouraged him to continue to submit to this very long and difficult discipline process. The process concluded in the summer of 1996, with the Church Life Commission and the Indiana Michigan Conference of the Mennonite Church saying that they encouraged "Yoder and the church to use his gifts of writing and teaching."[15] However difficult it was for Yoder and however inadequately the process may have been handled (from his side or the church's), nonetheless the fact that he saw the process through to the end showed his integrity, his commitment to live by principles that he had long taught."

Nation, Mark Thiessen. John Howard Yoder: Mennonite, Evangelical and Catholic http://www.goshen.edu/mqr/pastissues/july03nation.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.137.34 (talk) 06:34, 14 March 2007

Re: [1] and [2], replied: [3]

## Lost episode template

Moved to User_talk:SilvaStorm#Lost_episode_template 08:30, 17 March 2007

## Closing AfD's

Please read this section, because at the moment you are not closing them out correctly[4][5]. Please also read Non-administrators closing discussions, because your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 asian games was certainly borderline ambiguous. Daniel Bryant 03:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. On the first issue, I was just following what I've seen at TfD for closure tag placement without closely reading the instructions. Was I confusing a bot? On the second, I read it as a keep because the sole remaining deletion argument was "Delete unless reliable sources are added by the end of the AFD." and it appeared reliable sources had been added. Should this have been closed as No Concensus or was there some other policy implication I missed? I'm sorry if I caused trouble, I'm still trying to learn. —dgiestc 17:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

## Re: Fair use in Wilford Brimley

No prob, it's just that the photo was being used to illustrate and identify Brimley the actor, not Brimley as a fictional character. Hopefully we have a few more years to get a free alternative before he gives in to the dreaded diabetus. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

## Re. Pingback on admin coaching

Heh, I see that Terence has already launched a full-scale torpedo attack. :-D Tomorrow I'll see if I can think of something left unasked, and present some questions as you requested. Best regards, Húsönd 02:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

## Re: 128.243.220.22

Thanks for the message. Yeah, I wasn't sure what was considered "recent", but given that it's a school account, I understand that one week is quite recent enough. Cheers. Ytny 18:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

## Monospace

Well, I copied my sig from Freakofnurture, so guess that's three. ;-) Khoikhoi 22:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It was the word dead I found inflammatory. But it isn't a majorly inappropriete name, and if other people don't find it offensive, then it's not offensive to me.--Wikipedier (talk contribs) 03:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I read "Iwasdeadforever" as sort of an attempt at being poetic. "Iwaskilled" or "Youweredeadforever" would be more confrontational. —dgiestc 03:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• This username looks inflamatory to me. Would you recommend I report it?--Wikipedier (talk contribs) 03:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally I'd let it slide, but if you think it's bad, send it to WP:RFCN for more opinions. —dgiestc 03:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

## Template:Sa.vakilian

Hello. I notice you have created this page. There are two problems with this. First, pages which are only of use to one user could be created as a user subpage, such as User:Sa.vakilian/MyNewPage. The Template: name space should not be used for personal things. Secondly, that page looks a lot like a signature template, and the policy at WP:SIG specifically prohibits signature templates. If you have any questions about templates, user pages, or signatures, feel free to leave me a message. Thanks. —dgiestc 17:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your warning. I made a new signature and corrected almost all of my wrong signature. God bless you.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

## Re: Unblock decline

If I had to guess, you'll get a chance if they re-post... ;) – 05:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... not being archived, try taking the link [6] out of the header.

## Speedy deletion

Hi, you have been tagging redirect pages for speedy deletion (e.g., here) on the grounds that they are circular redirects. I may be mistaken but I am not aware of such a CSD. My understanding is that redirects can be speedy deleted for being redirects to non-existent pages (R1), redirects to user pages (R2), or redirects that result from an implausible typo (R3). Even so, this particular redirect was self-referencing and thus clearly a typo. Might I encourage you to fix broken redirects rather than delete them? Or, failing that, at least notify their creator, as suggested by the tag and WP:CSD. When an article is speedied, it disappears from user's watch lists, and thus if it is deleted in error, as I believe this one would have, it may stay deleted for quite some time before anyone notices and puts it back. --Selket Talk 05:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If a redirect was valid in a previous version, or was a simple double redirect, I would fix it. In this case it was never valid and there was no indication of what it should point to. This one had also existed for 3 days which suggested it was not simply a work in progress, but rather an abandoned mistake. I would consider a circular redirect to be a variant case of WP:CSD#R1 because it never redirected to anything meaningful. —dgiestc 05:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I accept that we have different interpretations of R1, but nonetheless you could have notified me. --Selket Talk 14:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

## WP:AIV

Thank you for making a report about ) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. I think you're jumping the gun a little bit... The levels of warning exist for a reason, and it shouldn't be an immediate jump to the last level. --Nlu (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the script I was using made them show up twice and I didn't notice the timestamps were nearly identical... —dgiestc 07:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

## Chink AfD

The Chink article has been greatly expanded now. Please take a look and see if you are interested in reconsidering your vote for merge. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to say that thanks in part to your support, my RfA passed with a unanimous score of 40/0/0. I solemnly swear to use these shiny new tools with honour and insanity integrity. --Wafulz 15:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

## Thanks

Thanks for the quick reverts of the vandalism on my userpage. It's pretty funny, really: it was protected for a week, and within a few hours of the protection expiration, it was vandalized three times. But if vandals don't like me, I must be doing something right. :)

Anyway, thanks! Kafziel Talk 17:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

...and thanks for reverting that stupid bot, too. :) Kafziel Talk 18:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I left a note on the bot's "False positives" section. FWIW MartinBot is pretty effective. —dgiestc 18:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, definitely. I wouldn't trade it. They all have their dumb moments, just like real editors. Kafziel Talk 18:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

## My RfA

Thank you for support in my unsuccessful RfA. I appreciate the support, and am disappointed on being judged by what in most opinions seem to be the wrong things. Until next time, edit on! :) — 03:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

## VandalSniper

You've been approved to use VandalSniper. Please let me know if you have any problems getting it working. --Chris (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I saw .NET and Gtk and assumed it runs on windows... —dgiestc 03:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

## The Kill

Hello, Dgies! Thank you for reverting vandalism to Wikipedia, which you did in The Kill. After you revert, I would recommend also warning the users whose edits you revert on their talk pages with an appropriate template or custom message. This will serve to direct new users towards the sandbox, educate them about Wikipedia, and a stern warning to a vandal may prevent him or her from vandalizing again. Thanks! Kaori (Please sign my autograph book!) 01:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it over WP:NOR concerns. Since the user had no previous warnings and it seemed like a good faith edit, I felt leaving a vandalism warning was overly harsh. In retrospect, I should have left a uw-unsourced warning, which I have now done. —dgiestc 01:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that. Kaori (Please sign my autograph book!) 01:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

## AfD

• Thanks, I'm an old man at heart, it seems ^_^ JuJube 03:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

## Anti-Vandalism Award

Dear Dgies, <<<Hey, thanks for the barnstar. Was there any particular vandalism I beat you to reverting?>>> Yes, a lot or reverts, (because I am an old school patroller) that's one reason I decided to give you a medal. You are doing a great job.--Cyril Thomas 10:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

## Re:protection

Hey, sorry about that. I did look at the log but I got a different list when I clicked, not sure what happened there, but the page is protected again now so alls well that ends well! Thanks for the heads-up SGGH 10:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

## 69.158.97.106

Could you block this user? The guys mad that I criticized the picture of him sticking fish up his butt, and he's been bothering me ever since.

--Meaneager 04:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. Alphachimp blocked him. --Meaneager

I'm not an admin, but I noticed the guy jumped to 69.158.105.31  to continue his attack. I reported the new IP to WP:AIV and requested that your user page be semi-protected so only established users (including yourself) may edit it for the next 24 hours. —dgiestc 05:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

## User:Meaneager

I went ahead and semi-protected User:Meaneager for 24 hours. I hope by the end of that time our vandal friend will have gotten bored. Heimstern Läufer 05:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

## Judygarlandishot

Actually I misread that one as Judy-Garland-is-shot (rather than hot) and felt it was caught by the violent actions prohibiton. Forget I brought it up. 17:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Only edit was clear vandalism to the main page FA was also in the block reason so I don't think there's any need to unblock this one... 17:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
So... right action for the wrong reason. No harm done. —dgiestc 17:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

## Elton John Image

Re: User talk:Dannyg3332#Image removal 20:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, but all images provided are in the process of being removed from Commons due to the abundance of pansy ass wanna-be wiki admins without the backbone to take a stand against a user making up fictitious policies to justify his edits.Dannyg3332 20:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, but all images need to be removed from commons as they are the copyrighted property of a third party.Dannyg3332 20:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line....... I was wrong to upload these images. To avoid litigation they all need to be removed, or at least tagged as copyright infringing and tagged for deletion promptly.Dannyg3332 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

## Chuck Yeager

Replied: User talk:Charlie622 22:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

k sorry and thanks for the info. I will look for references

## Re. Pingback

Hey, you elaborated very good answers to Terence's questions. I added a few more. I think that you're ready for adminship. I can nominate you anytime you wish, should you require a nominator or co-nominator. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 19:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Okey dokey. :-) By the way, I am once again satisfied with your answers. Well done! Regards, Húsönd 23:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

## AIV report

Hi, the user you reported to WP:AIV doesn't exist. Did you spell it right? Or has someone wiped the name from the database? --Wafulz 04:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied: [7] 04:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

## Respuesta de El filoloco

Querido amigo:

El artículo "Teoría de la conspiración electrónica" aún no ha sido borrado de la Wikipedia en español. Tampoco es un ensayo original, porque está sacado de la bibliografía que en él aparece. Un saludo afectuoso. El filóloco (The Mad Philologist) - Talk to me 07:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

## yer page got vandelized

no prob! the_undertow talk 07:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)