User talk:DragonflySixtyseven: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:42, 20 September 2014

IMPORTANT NOTE: ADD YOUR MESSAGES AT THE BOTTOM, NOT THE TOP. OTHERWISE I MIGHT NOT SEE THEM.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Status

Category:Wikipedia administrators? – S. Rich (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. It's not compulsory, and I don't feel like it. DS (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. You've got a great supercount, so I was wondering. – S. Rich (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drop-in Fuels

Dear DragonflySixtyseven, I got a notification that you have reviewed my draft for the above topic. However, I am not clear whether my article has been accepted as it still shows the status: under review. Please let me know. Thanks Prithvi Simha 16:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prithvisimha092 (talk • contribs)

Thanks, Could you let me know when I can expect a review? I can judge by the amount of backlog Wikipedia has that you must be completely occupied. Prithvi Simha 16:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prithvisimha092 (talk • contribs)

Thanks

Hi! Here's FilBenLeafBoy and I'm glad that you approved my userpage... Thanks!!! ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilBenLeafBoy (talk • contribs) 20:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of my userpage

Hi. I got a notification that you reviewed my userpage, but I don't see anything. What happened? QiwXAatUnL (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Revell

Why have you deleted Kim Revell? It might have been created by a banned "sockpuppet" but it was expanded by other editors and survived an AfD. You seem to have kept Bridgette Starr on that basis. Kindly put it back. 5.66.141.179 (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're right. DS (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

¿?

Estimated DragonflySixtyseven:

I do not know English. I'm not a puppet.

Regards: Girardelli G.Escucho 18:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OIKOS Software page

I am confused why this was deleted. We rewrote a couple times. I recently wrote to: To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ________________________________________ I hereby affirm that OIKOS Software, Inc., is the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of “OIKOS Software”. ® I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported". I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Janice Leahy, CEO August 5, 2014 jleahy@oikossoftware.com OIKOS Software, Inc. 250 Commercial Street, STE 3012 Manchester, NH 03101

®

SER# 86142936

Can you please tell me how to get the page reinstated?

(talk page stalker) I took a look at that page and have to agree with DragonflySixtyseven that it was far too promotional. It's so full of buzzwords that I had trouble determining what it meant to say. Or, "driving virility amongst professional users" - your products are making your customers more manly? Seriously? You may want to take a look at Wikipedia's guideline on conflicts of interest. I had intended to undelete the article and to have a community-based deletion discussion determine its fate, but this article was so bizarrely over-the-top promotional that doing so would just be a waste of everybody's time. It doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. Huon (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone send me the file so we can edit and repost? Yes, maybe 'virility' wasn't the best choice of words. Our intention was the technology drives word of mouth. I don't have the original file. J Leahy — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaniceLeahy (talk • contribs) 15:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chaenothecopsis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "<>"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

*''[[Chaenothecopsis golubkovae]]''<ref name=Newsletter>[http://www.lichenology.org/Publications/ILN/ILN42_1.pdf REPORTS: Nina Sergeevna Golubkova>, by Mikhail Andreev; in the International Lichenological Newsletter; volume 42, number 1; page 16-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gene Wolfe bibliography may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

* "The Changeling", first published in ''[[Orbit (anthology series)|Orbit]]'' [1968

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request to revert your deletion

I would like to request you revert your deletion of File:Tom Carstairs In Concert.jpg. Contrary to your deletion rationale it was in use at Right to be forgotten, and consensus at WP:FFD was against deletion. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we're not happy with the copyright status of the image, the photographer is unclear and it will be deleted here and on Commons as a copyright violation, Monty845. Nick (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While we can certainly discuss that point, this is clearly not unambigious copyright infringement as required to justify speedy deletion. A deletion discussion was already underway prior to deletion, with an emergent consensus to keep. While we can have a deletion discussion on the copyright issue, the unilateral deletion was wrong. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't keep a copyright violation no matter what happens, it's pointless discussing an image with unclear and contradictory licencing status. Nick (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

F11 requires the article to be tagged for 7 days prior to deletion. The deletion is still not compliant with policy. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I decline to restore the picture, as I have not been convinced either that there is any real reason for it to exist on Wikipedia (to illustrate 'people who wanted their embarrassing old selfies, originally uploaded to illustrate spam, taken off wikipedia'?), or that it should have been uploaded in the first place (uploader claimed it was a photo of Tom Carstairs, but uploader also claimed to be Tom Carstairs; at least one of these statements is necessarily false, and we therefore cannot trust any statements made re: copyright). That said, should a different administrator feel strongly enough to restore the picture, I won't argue the point. Bear in mind, however, the dangers of process masturbation. DS (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well another admin is already promising to take it to DRV if Nick doesn't undo is redeletion, so I guess we will see where it goes. Don't want anyone to be able to accuse me of a WP:WHEEL violation given its been deleted twice now. I'm gonna go prepare a fair use template for the DRV just in case. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've no issue with it being used under the auspices of Fair Use, if you're prepared to deal with the fair use rationale, reduction of the image size, etc. Nick (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If, after discussion, it is decided that the licensing is invalid, I am prepared to provide the fair use rationale and take care of the size reduction. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How/where would you want the licencing issues to be discussed ? I'd be inclined to suggest a Possible Unfree File discussion, that do ? Nick (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to be picky on that, personally, I'd just amend it to the existing FFD discussion under a subheading, but either way is fine. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_August_6#File:Tom_Carstairs_In_Concert.jpg - I've asked the closing administrator not to delete the image, if it's agreed the copyright information is unacceptable, so you guys can put on the fair use rationale. Nick (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!

Thank-you for patrolling my page, Wiki's obviously incredibly backlogged at the moment so I hope it helps :) If you have the time, do you have any advice for improving the article? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Napier_Operatic_Society) I'm new to Wikipedia and this is my first article so I'm still learning the ropes and getting used to it. Thanks again! Anthony Collier 00:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	catch your own world Sherry26 (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I've received a notification that you reviewed a draft page I have in my userspace. I'm not sure what that means. Is there anything I should know?SPACKlick (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt response. I wasn't aware of that partrol.SPACKlick (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

some reason for notability

hi, you recently deleted the page:Kashf Al Qemmah the reason mentioned is : (notability not asserted), this book counted as a source historical book among scholars in religions and sects ans also a dated book.. besides, as mentioned in references, some Articles in university referred to it as a important book in pertaining to understanding Shiites..Mehdi ghaed (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but you didn't say anything about that. If you're willing to expand it to explain why the book matters, I'll restore it into your userspace, and you can work on it there until it's ready. Okay? DS (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

before anything I appreciate of you for pay attention to the page..but I added the references such as Pazuoki as a Article in journal of university..i added the the reason for notability and importance of book...Mehdi ghaed (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mehdi ghaed, DS has asked me to reply as he's away from his computer right now. You've shown the book exists and that it might be important, but you've not shown why exactly it is important (i.e why it is notable). There are tens of thousands of books written every year and to show that any one of those books is notable, you need to show it being extensively discussed by scholars in papers or presentations, reviewed by various sources when published, the book winning a major prize or being included in a list of important and influential works. These sources don't need to be online, they can be print reviews from several decades back, just make sure you let us know enough to allow an intrepid researcher to track down copies and use them in their own work. Hope this helps, Nick (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Mehdi ghaed: I just had a look at the article, and I couldn't verify even the existence of the sources you cite, much less what they say about the Kashf Al Qemmah. Every search I undertook, including WorldCat, at best turned up Wikipedia mirrors. That might be due to typos, but I'm rather concerned when I can't even verify that the conference whose proceedigs are cited took place. How would I obtain a copy of, say, Introducing the book of Kash Al Qemmah? Are there some English-language sources discussing the book? Also, the article did not say that this is a historical source for scholars. In fact, the only parts of the deleted article that come close to discussing the book's impact, instead of summarizing the content, were the "style" section (which gave no indication of notability) and the "translation" section, which listed translations without providing any useful information about them, not even when they were made or how they differ. I have restored the article and moved it to User:Mehdi ghaed/Kashf Al Qemmah, but it will need significant work to establish that the book is notable and to make sure that the article's content is verifiable. Huon (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AN notice

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lennick

I sent my first ever article on “Michael Lennick” for review a few weeks ago. How long does vetting usually take? And will Wikipedia contact me with issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OwenLars66 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thank you for all of your help on the IRC! Please accept this beer to slake your thirst after such a conversation. Jab843 (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soffian Abdul Manaf

Hi there DragonflySixtyseven! I am currently trying to create a wiki page on this company I enjoy, Photobook Worldwide, which you had recently removed the draft from my sandbox and stating it as overly promotional. I’m a bit surprised by this because I figured it’s merely informational and not promotional since I had omitted certain facts which I think would be somewhat endorsing. I’m pretty new to Wiki so I may not be meeting some content guidelines here. If you don’t mind, please advise on what I did wrong and what necessary changes I should make to get the content up and running. Thanks.— comment added by Soffian Abdul Manaf (talk) 04:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: If you don't consider "Their business is based on a unique selling proposition of 4 prime guarantees" to be "somewhat endorsing", I don't even want to know what the omitted parts would have said. The entire content, practically every single sentence, sang Photobook Worldwide's praise, was chock-full of marketing buzzwords, and cited no reliable sources. Huon (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response! Appreciate it. Alright noted, I'll take your comments into account. I have however taken the information for Photobook Worldwide from their various sites such as official website, facebook and some articles. It was just a draft and I haven't gotten around to putting in the citations just yet as I temporarily didn't have internet connection. The wordings came from those sites as well. I also took examples from a similar company (Shutterfly) as a guide when I created this draft. I'm in no immediate rush to publish the page yet until I get it right, and am creating a similar one with the sole purpose to keep it as a draft for now. I hope you would consider not removing it until perhaps I present it to you or another admin for consideration. I apologize for having wasted your time and am still learning how things are run within wiki. — comment added by Soffian Abdul Manaf (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you took the content from company websites may be related to the fact that it was unduly promotional. Wikipedia is not in the business of parroting company self-representations. Furthermore, there might be issues of copyright. You should instead summarize in your own words what reliable, independent sources such as newspapers or reputable tech magazines have reported about the company, and you should cite your sources. See WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily do so. See also WP:NPOV. Huon (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all reviews

Hello DragonflySixtyseven, Once again, I want to thank you for the goodwork you do reviewing articles. Stanleytux (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Love Creek, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Creek. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing the air, lets give it a try

Hey DragonflySixtyseven, as we had our conversation on IRC last night, I would like to continue the discussion here in a public forum instead of on IRC, so others can also comment, as there are more people involved than just you and I. For clarity, the reason I dismissed the ArbCom case request was because I was informed that ArbCom can't do crap all except remove administrative rights. That's not what I wanted and I thought they could do something like an injunction on your use of the unblock button without discussion IF the case didn't work to resolve the issue. So, my issue, and why I have issue with all the 5 incidents (though the last two are the ones that are relevant), is that you failed to just open up and talk to the administrator who originally made the block. I'm not here to dispute whether the blocks were right in the first place, because we all make mistakes, maybe my block was wrong in 2011, but i'm not here to say i'm right or wrong. My ultimate goal, where I would like this to go, is for you to consult administrators before unblocking. Mostly (because watch there will be one or two) every other administrator on this site follows the standard as it's outlined in WP:UNBLOCK. You've avoided the issue before by having it all disappear under a cloud, like in 2011 where you placed yourself under restriction which ended the incident. Here we are though in 2014 having the same issue. It's really simple to go and ask the original administrator about unblocking, and if they disagree with you, there is ANI, where you can get it reviewed by your peers, and the a consensus can be formed about the issue, and maybe the original admin's block is cleared. We might as well just get rid of ANI if were not willing to talk about it with anyone, as that's what it is for. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 14:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't; he quit and blocked himself. But I usually ask people who're involved; it's just in cases where I'm really concerned about BITE that I sometimes rush in. DS (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to go back to User:Toddst1 and talk to him about that block now. I was talking about at that point in time in which you made the unblock. I've also made good on blocks where people are mad that they are blocked, feeling like they are being bitten after talking with the appropriate administrators. If they are really that volatile, then what happens when they get fed up with the first conversation towards consensus that doesn't go their way? I don't see how BITE excuses the need to talk with other admins. And we aren't here to talk about the "usually" were here to talk about at least 2 of the 5 incidents where you haven't. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, DS, I did not know of your history until I saw DQ's edits and reverts. If I had, I doubt I would have accepted your promise or agreed to the close. At a minimum, I would have raised the issues that DQ now raises. And even your responses here presume that you know best (e.g., your BITE comment), which is the same impression I got at AN. I also found Floquenbeam's comments when he closed the topic interesting, mostly for what he didn't say. Even now I'm not sure what he meant.

Finally, it's not clear to me that what DQ was told about arbitration cases involving admins is accurate. I'm fairly certain I've seen administrators admonished and topic-banned rather than desysopped. I don't see why ArbCom can't fashion whatever remedy it chooses. Certainly, DQ can request a particular remedy so it's clear he's not asking for you to be desysopped. But that's up to DQ. I haven't decided whether I will do anything further at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ask, I'll pontificate after all: I think that an admin should block an editor without getting consensus first iff they are confident that they could get consensus for it if they needed to (mostly because getting consensus ahead of time would be a time sink 98% of the time). If another admin reasonably disagrees, the default state should usually be to unblock, pending a discussion (like BRD). If there's consensus to block after discussion, then block. if there's consensus to leave unblocked, or there is no consensus either way, then leave unblocked. I'm concerned that requiring the blocking admin to agree before unblocking, or requiring a consensus to unblock before unblocking, rather than requiring a consensus to block, sets a bad precedent, and leads us further down the path to "admins vs. peons". I think the current wording, where prior discussion with the blocking admin is strongly encouraged, but not required, strikes the proper fuzzy balance.

This is a difficult position to take when, like me, you generally believe blocks should come sooner than they sometimes do, and last longer than they sometimes do. Some people will end up unblocked doing it this way, who I would prefer remain blocked if I was God Emperor. But I'm more concerned about the overall slide towards the First Mover Advantage than I am with a few borderline cases being unblocked rather than blocked. That particular AN/ANI thread, and some of the admin comments in it, seemed to me as one more lurch in a direction I don't want Wikipedia to go. I wish DS67 had held off a little and discussed it first, and I think he risks damaging a principle he believes in by not discussing first whenever possible. But I wish even more Bbb23 hadn't opened that thread. Particularly when it appears to non-admins that we're more concerned with an admin's feelings about being reversed than with the blocked editor's feelings at being blocked.

I don't have an actual strong opinion on this particular editor who was unblocked; if anything, I probably would have blocked them too. But I'd love to see us be a little more tolerant of admins who give occasional (once every one to two years) undeserved second chances. I'd love to see more admins have an attitude of "please reverse any admin action I've made if you think it's a mistake, and we can talk about it". We expect editors to swallow their bile and do this in content disagreements all the time. Sometimes we block them when they don't do it. Why can't admins follow BRD for this kind of disagreement?

From what I saw of DQ's now-withdrawn post, some of DS67's unblockings have been mistakes. And I don't support this idea of "I'm keeping an eye on him, don't block yourself but talk to me", nor of unblocking people who are fairly obviously causing problems. But still, one unblock every one to two years that turns out to have been wrong... that's not really that bad.

So next time, think twice before wondering aloud what Floquenbeam thinks about something; he's liable to tell you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments don't suprise me a bit. I didn't ping you because I thought you'd agree with me. As you know, this wouldn't be the first time we've disagreed, but I thought it was only fair - and I'm a big believer in fairness - to find out what you meant by your close.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, your comments definitely made me think. My original request wasn't meant to be 100% of the time to request the original admins comments. I think a flow of common sense comes with that. Such as the admin not being around, or it being a mistake, or frankly just a purely stupid block (yes, i've seen them before). I've unblocked first before talking before also. It's the cases where the block was reasonably made, that I would like to see some attempt at discussion before unblock.

I think also if were going to say "admin should make sure they would have consensus to block" that we should be saying the same about unblock unless they have talked with the blocking administrator, like in cases of just holding on to hope of a second chance working. If we are a community of consensus, and admins are supposed to act on it, then the same standard needs to exist for unblocking. That's what I'm challenging here, is that there was minimal likelihood for unblock, yet it was still made without discussion.

As for the 1 or 2 bad unblocks a year thing, I can understand that everyone makes mistakes. But I think people should learn from their mistakes to not make them again, as we expect editors to do with dispute resolution. This is not the case with what i'm outlining with DS, he's making the same one. And it's not that he decided to unblock, it's a matter of when. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I've started the discussion process, and I think it would be stupid to repost the case at this point in time without trying to finish this discussion. But it has to remain mutual that this discussion is going somewhere and working to prevent the issue at hand and not dancing around it. I'm also not just going to accept a blanket response like in 2011, where there is a promise not to undo anyone's unblock. I'm not going to accept this thread going stale before it's resolved either. D67's responses here are critical. That's why the title of this thread is "Clearing the air, lets give it a try".

To be clear on what I'm looking for, it's for D67's understanding that the out-of-process unblocks are disruptive, even if he believes it's in the best interest of the project. I'm also looking for the understanding of what the process is if you disagree with the block (aka talking to the admin), and if the admin doesn't agree with you (taking it to ANI). It's a matter of protocol or "meta" as DS would call it (I think), and it's what holds us accountable to each other as admins, and it works. Otherwise we might as well create a "Chief admin" at Wikipedia for the person who can fight long enough to hold their administrative action.

As I've been talking to more people, it seems like what I was notified of was more a what ArbCom can vs. will do, though i'm not 100% on that either. I'll try and talk to some individual Arbs or might even go to WT:ARB to find out, to make sure i'm on the right page for the future, if it ever comes to refile, which I hope it doesn't. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement Arthur Rubin was topic-banned. In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes, then administrator Nikkimaria was admonished. And in perhaps the one most similar to this one in terms of administrative privileges, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute, among other remedies, David Gerard was "indefinitely prohibited from using his administrator permissions (i) on pages relating to transgender people or issues and (ii) in situations involving such pages." I'm fairly certain there are others if I continued to look.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, thank you for that. I will keep that in mind if this comes to a true request for a case, and not the current "procedural" case. And I would have stuck with the original case, if I had the correct information, but now that I have started the discussion, I would be hypocritical to continue to request the case while trying to resolve it through other means. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request restored

I have restored the arbitration case request. The committee's procedures prohibit the withdrawal of unresolved arbitration requests. AGK [•] 10:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RNLB Charles Burton

Hi Dragonfly I have gone round the block prior to this being my last resort, I have had my page reviewed twice and I have made the changes previously stated, You have recently reviewed my page but do not seem to have left any comment on the matter, I am currently at a loss as to what to do next with the article. Any reference to this matter would be much appreciated. Wikiremarks (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Reception" section on the Clans of the Alphane Moon article

Hi DF67, I apologise if I'm doing something incorrect here. I have to admit this is my first attempt to contribute to Wikipedia.

I was cruising some topics yesterday and stumbled across the article for Clans of the Alphane Moon book which I read many years ago. I was surprised by the Reception section because... 1) it was so negative 2) in my opinion "Reception" discusses how a book was received when it came out, and I was surprised that there were links to reviews on a book that came out in 1964.

However, following that link I discovered that the article referenced in the Reception section was from 2014. The other thing I found out was it was a fairly extreme opinion piece, written with a very new-millenium PC overtones, criticising works from 50 years ago from that perspective. It was a different (and very low-budget) world back then. If you read the comments section of this blog post Sandra Newman gets pretty soundly criticised for this article as being biased and unfair. It also deals with CotAM quite cursorially - there are only 8 sentences about the book.

I'm not sure if that matters in Wikipedia. I guess you can find an article on the internet that takes any view on any subject and reference it. Is there a criteria that makes a reference good or bad?

In my opinion, I don't think the section you've added is fair as it quotes a fairly extreme and biased article. Also I think that there is no date in the wikipedia text and it is listed under "reception" makes it seem like a contemporary review which it is not. My thought was that either the section should be simply removed, (i.e. undo those changes) or modified to at least include the date of the article (i.e. something like:

Writing in the Guardian *BooksBlog in 2014*, Sandra Newman cites ...

I thought of diving in and making changes myself... but I am loathe to start "correcting" a contribution done by an experienced wikipedia contributor. I don't want to offend you or do something that is against wikipedia policies, of which I don't have a lot of experience. My impression is that the most important policy of editing wikipedia is "don't put in your opinion, use 3rd party material and cite your references", and taking your contribution out smacks to me of just thinking "this 3rd party reference is not fair or credible" and how do I justify that? So maybe just making it clear the date it was written.

I dunno - hope this isn't offensive to you - I'm just trying to do what I feel is right but need guidance.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.215.34 (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - also should this discussion be held on the page in question or here. I couldn't see a way to add information on the talk page of the book page but that could be because I'm clueless.

However, I have at least created a user account (yay!) so hopefully I can sign this. Or at least watch it.

As per your suggestion, I've added a note that this was something said in 2014. The responses in the Guardian's comments section, however, I will not be adding, because it's just the comments section after an article. DS (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your Reviews

I just wanted to thank you for reviewing so many of my articles. I appreciate the concern you admins show for the integrity of this platform and for the service it offers to people. --3world Kid (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of me

Hi, just wanted to ask why you reviewed my account. Were there any red flags? dnsla23 18:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs)

Deletion of The Chelyabinsk Superbolide: we didn't see that one coming (e-book)

I would like to enquire on the deletion of that page. I never received any warning about the page being voted for deletion, that should be mandatory, I believe. Wikipedia is a "democratic" device and as such deletions should proceed in a "civilized" manner not as "sudden events". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcluster (talk • contribs) 08:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were not notified of a deletion debate because there was no deletion debate. The page was deleted because it made no comments whatsoever about notability. It's an e-book! Written by... someone who wrote "one of the first published solutions for the orbit of the parent body" of the meteor! Published by... some company that doesn't seem to exist outside of having published this one e-book! Sourced to... the Amazon.com page that lets you buy a copy of the e-book! So that's basically a "buy this book" thing. There was also a summary of the contents of the book (described as "easy to read"), and some references to New Scientist and JPL... except that those references don't say anything about this e-book at all, they're references to support some statements that the e-book makes (#1: there was an asteroid near-collision in 2002, and #2: the risk of an asteroid impact is not significantly higher today than it was 100 years ago). That says nothing about why anyone should care, unless they're trying to sell copies of the e-book, in which case they're doing it in entirely the wrong place. In summary: should there have been a Wikipedia article about this e-book? Not unless there's actually information about why anybody should care about this e-book as opposed to all the other e-books -- and if that information exists, then why wasn't it in the article? Yes, articles can always be improved, but they have to start somewhere. And the only place that article started was the "BUY THIS BOOK" page on Amazon. So that's why the article was deleted: it made zero assertions of notability. DS (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case request declined

An arbitration case request in which you were named as a party has been withdrawn, and that withdrawal has been accepted by the Arbitration Committee. The arbitrators views on hearing this matter, found here, may be useful. For the arbitration committee,--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your review of the Ernest Hinton biography page - Kent Kllwiki (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing pages

Hi, thanks for reviewing my page and also I got an award from another user, keep up the good work! --Allen ^talk 00:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good old crumbly New Yorker cookie

... since I just realised you have literally reviewed dozens of articles of mine - thanks! Kareldorado (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected Sock

Hello DragonflySixtyseven, User:Coal Press Nation 1 who just created the article Nosa (artist) is a sock puppet of User:Coal Press Nation, an account that was blocked by another Admin not long ago. This user seems to have decided to evade the block and create new articles under new usernames. It is just like the case of User:MarkMysoe. Stanleytux (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Urimaikural

Hi, please create a redirect page for 'Urimai Kural' to Urimaikural as the page 'Urimai Kural' was deleted on 2009 and locked only for administrators.Vaidyasr (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- the one that was deleted in 2009 was for a movie that hadn't been made, but if you want to point to a movie from 1974, that's not a problem. DS (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on Userspace Drafts

Hi DS-

I've noticed that you have assessed several of my userespace drafts. I understand that this SOP and am grateful.

My question actually is whether you have any advice about the most beneficial strategy, that is, whether to futz around developing drafts until they seem worth moving to the main space or whether it's better to move them as substantial stubs (i.e. two or three paragraphs). Does the userspace take up Wikipedia's mainframe space or overheat it? Do you have any observations about the psychology of it?

No rush or need for an elaborate answer if you don't feel like one. It's a matter of curiosity about the etiquette and the norms more than about policy.

Cheers, ch (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed Pages: bodrad

Thanks for reviewing my article. I noticed that it has not yet been moved to the main article space, and after reviewing other messages on your Talk page, I assume you did a patrol of the article. Is that correct? That is a new concept to me so I just wanted to be sure. Does this mean the article is still in the queue to be moved to the main space? Thanks for your time and the review! 67.176.62.3 (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct; it's still in the queue. DS (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note

You described my edit to the Christine Lagarde page as "hostile", yet all I did was add the simple fact of the reported raid on her home in the course of the investigation. Lagarde is a prominent international figure. The state of formal investigations involving her activities are important facts about her progress in the public sphere. There was simply nothing "hostile" about the sentence added by me. There is more hostility (though not much) in your commenting as you have than in the contribution made by me (zero). user: sirlanz

That's not at all what I was referring to. I was referring to your creation of a userpage for another user (a userpage which I deleted). You may be engaged in a dispute with that other user, but that's no excuse for creating that sort of userpage. DS (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Risdon

Hi DragonflySixtyseven.

Thanks for reviewing my article Wilfred_Risdon; I'm guessing from my current reading of the article and the √ in the review that you consider that it 'passed muster', about which I am most gratified. I did revert one change though, which I hope you will accommodate: to some extent I think there is a British/American divide on this one, but I find hanging apostrophes [as shown here in Charles'] visually inelegant [and actually grammatically wrong in the singular, but I wouldn't argue that one: I think it is more of a style issue].

Keep up the good work. Jonrisdon (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation Day

Hi, the notability of the source can be assessed from:

Allow me to re-create the page and add the proper references, thank you.

Dark Liberty (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I looked at those references. They don't indicate any notability whatsoever. They confirm that the game existed, yes, but that's not enough. Gamespot says "not reviewed" and "there are no articles or videos for Liberation Day". IGN includes an ultra-brief description of the game that might as well have come from the game box, and then nothing. And the youtube link is just music (from the game?) played over a montage of still images (from the game?) and photos of the game CD. Please read our guidelines on notability. DS (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. Half the articles on Wikipedia should be deleted or cut down in size. for example, the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte_%28virus_writer%29 has a bunch of b.s. (Maybe you should delete the second paragraph or the entire article. :) Liberation Day in particular, though, sold a few million copies. Sometimes when a company bankrupts, so does the notability along with it. I'll write a few reviews and perhaps upload a few YouTube videos; it's actually a predecessor which many video game companies copied from. In a few years when people start to rediscover this game they once played, maybe I'll resubmit this ticket. Thank you for reviewing the case.

Dark Liberty (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you could find reviews from back in the day, when Liberation Day was selling millions of copies, that would help. And you're free to trim the article about the virus writer, or even to tag it for deletion. DS (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

99+ notifications lol, this reply isn't necessary your just doing your thing but i had to

WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for undelete - Draft:Red Flush Casino

Hi DragonflySixtyseven,

I would like to please request that you please undelete the draft Red Flush Casino. I am learning how to appropriately present information for Wikipedia and would like to edit the article to this end. I now understand that there are sections of the article that are promotional as well as how to present the draft neutrally for consideration. I appreciate your time and trust that you would be able to assist me with this request.

Thanks you, Human49 (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd need to see some evidence of notability first. If you can show me media coverage, that'll help. DS (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To DragonflySixtyseven: Re My first attempt at writing a page, Ronald L. Dirsmith

(If, conversely, only one person was ever using it, then please post a message on this page to the effect of "regardless of the dual implications of my username, only one person is using this account.")

Yes, I am the only person writing this article ...

It is my first time and quite a challenge to even begiin to understand f the very well written requirements. PLease bear with me during this learning period. In fact, if you could suggest a couple of things for me to learn, I will try.

Many thanks to whoever you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2BondedForLIfe (talk • contribs) 01:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios

Hey,

I would be greatful if you could revdel this lot on this page. It is a copyvio of [1], [2] and [3], among others. Semi-protection may also be warrented, as user appears to have ownership issues per User talk:Mdann52#COMSATS Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 13:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, DragonflySixtyseven. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 23:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not sure of significance of "reviewed".

Just picked up an e-mail that says User:ThoughtIdRetired/draft article on Composite Construction (ship, 19th Century) was reviewed by DragonflySixtyseven. Not sure what this means, but I presume that you are the person to ask? I have just added to the Talk page for this article, explaining why I have stopped working on it at the moment. I hope, however, to have a fully referenced, authoritative, and complete explanation of this technique and its relevance as soon as I can get sight of the sources I have identified. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for moving my article from Rao Bahadhur Dharmapravartha Gubbi Thotadappa to Gubbi Thotadappa. did u reviewed it?? since i'm new here. this is ma first msg. u r admin?? what it means. . NaveenNkadalaveni (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for moving my article from Rao Bahadhur Dharmapravartha Gubbi Thotadappa to Gubbi Thotadappa. did u reviewed it?? since i'm new here. this is ma first msg. u r admin?? what it means. . NaveenNkadalaveni (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; I skimmed it and it looks okay (although it needs a lot of work); yes, I'm an admin, which means I can delete and restore articles, change editing permissions on articles, and block and unblock users. DS (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for undelete Nizamuddin Hussainy

Hi I am Abubakar Siddiki,and i saw that above mentioned page has been deleted and i am sure that it is true about this person,I am a nearest one to him.Which i noticed on his page were appropriate.So kindly restore this article.Plz plz i will be appreciated of you, so kindly do this plz.Please Sir. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bittu Mondal Jhuruli (talk • contribs) 04:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three word budget

Thanks for reviewing the article "Three word budget" in my namespace (about three weeks ago). Is it suitable for release, do you think?

An earlier version was speedy deleted ("no indication of importance") while I was drafting it, and I feel I have now addressed this, and notability in general.

Thanks, NingBing (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Zwetschge

Dear DragonflySixtyseven

I have received this notification: “Draft:Zwetschge was reviewed by DragonflySixtyseven 9 hours ago.” The review status of the draft article has not visibly changed; it has been neither accepted nor declined. I can see no comment, suggestion, edit, or other indication of any outcome of the review. Is that as you would expect, or has something gone wrong somewhere?

Thanks and best wishes

Frans Fowler (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing

Hi DragonflySixtyseven,

Thanks for reviewing my recent articles. Many are yet to be reviewed, hope u will have a look into that. Thanks again.

jai98 (talk) 19:54, 07 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just a quick message of gratitude for patrolling my recently created articles.

Thank you! - Sweet Nightmares 21:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for viewing 22 articles of mine. Most admins aren't as quick as you are. :P Eden10Hazard (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hugo Award for Best Novelette may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

{sort|19912|[[1990 in literature|1991]]}} || {{sortname|Charles|Sheffield}} || {{sort|"Braver Thing]]"|"[[A Braver Thing]]"}} || ''[[Asimov's Science Fiction]]'' || <ref name="Hugo91"/>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ray_Bradbury_in_shock.jpg

My blog File 770 is the source of this picture and I have a comment about the title assigned to the image file. (The rest of the article seems fine to me, and I know the photograper Tarpinian has no problem with the use of the image itself.)

While it might make a better story, the expression on Ray's face wasn't shock. The expression is just the byproduct of somebody with bad eyesight trying to view a computer screen. The photographer, Tarpinian, says Bradbury was delighted by the video the first time he saw it.

I suggest it would enhance the accuracy of the entry if the image file was given a different title. MikeGlyer (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Braver Thing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Novelette. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Heli Malongo Airways.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Heli Malongo Airways.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My sandbox review

Hey I got mail notification:

User:Dkorostil/sandbox was reviewed by DragonflySixtyseven.

How could you do so? What does it mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.69.245.86 (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sebuah BintangWiki untuk Anda!

	BintangWiki Asli
	Salam sehat dan ceria selalu ya kang. Tuvlihadi (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No point in reviewing _me_

. . . I simply made a very small attempt to add something and got booted in the teeth and then ignored. Not really motivated right now, which is sad, because the subject of the article I submitted is a person cited here on Wikipedia as someone who has made notable contributions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrrhis01 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Moon

Aloha Dragon! Thank you for reviewing my Jordan Suckley article that I wrote. If possible, at your convienience, please review the Arctic Moon article. It has been nominated for speedy deletion for poor citations, however its not much different from my Jordan Suckley article. If I did something wrong please let me know, otherwise thanks for your great work and contributions! Peterchiapperino (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Blame Coco

Dear Dragon - I saw your name on said talk page and wondered if you could help with the migration/consolidation necessary now that Eliot Sumner has started using her real name and released an EP in August with a record due next year. I removed the Eliot Sumner redirect to I Blame Coco, and added the beginnings of both a Eliot Sumner page and Information page. I am not equipped to handle the more technical parts of these pages at this moment, and I thought it polite to alert someone before I made wholesale changes to a page others had worked on.Gavin.s (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, and sorry to go rogue on you there. I'm just glad I did ask before I edited anyone else's content. One more request - could you point me to the page that explains how to insert a new entry into a discography? That looked a bit complex. Thanks. Gavin.s (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 489: / Line 489: @@
 ==[[I Blame Coco]]==
 Dear Dragon - I saw your name on said talk page and wondered if you could help with the migration/consolidation necessary now that Eliot Sumner has started using her real name and released an EP in August with a record due next year. I removed the Eliot Sumner redirect to I Blame Coco, and added the beginnings of both a [[Eliot Sumner]] page and [[Information (Eliot Sumner EP)|Information]] page. I am not equipped to handle the more technical parts of these pages at this moment, and I thought it polite to alert someone before I made wholesale changes to a page others had worked on.[[User:Gavin.s|Gavin.s]] ([[User talk:Gavin.s|talk]]) 23:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
+:Thanks for the help, and sorry to go rogue on you there. I'm just glad I did ask before I edited anyone else's content. One more request - could you point me to the page that explains how to insert a new entry into a discography? That looked a bit complex. Thanks. [[User:Gavin.s|Gavin.s]] ([[User talk:Gavin.s|talk]]) 04:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)