User talk:Deiz

Music

Good taste in music, a man with a mind like yours ought to check out Kyuss ;) - FrancisTyers 01:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Takashi Hasegawa: Afd nomination inquiry.

Hello,

I noticed that you recently tagged the article on Takashi Hasegawa for deletion? Why is that? Folajimi^(talk)

No hard feelings. Thanks for the link to the guide on Notable subjects. For whatever it is worth, I agree with (and support) your arguments for the article's deletion. Cheers. Folajimi^(talk)

West Lorne

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm afraid the entirety of my contact with West Lorne has been a three-week teaching practicum at West Elgin Secondary School in 1989, under Robert Karn, whom your girlfriend may remember if she went to high school there (Mr. Karn was planning to retire in 2000; so it depends how long ago she went there). I never saw much of the town as I was living in London, Ontario at the time and hitched a ride back and forth, which I had to be at the school for.

I suppose I could make a couple of small additions, such as mentioning the school, and putting the town's coördinates, and a link to a satellite view. Also, I don't believe that West Lorne is directly south of London – more westsouthwest, I thought. I'll check a map. It is also just off Highway 401, which has an article that I could link to.

As for teaching in Saudi Arabia, that seems to be a man's job, as virtually everything seems to be over there. If your girlfriend would like to teach there, her only hope would be to land a position at a girls' or women's institution. There's no way she'll be allowed to teach men. And of course, she would have to be all right with wearing exceedingly modest Islamic clothing, at least in public. In some places, though, including Jubail Town, and sometimes Jubail Industrial City (two distinct towns), foreign non-Moslem women can get away with showing their faces, and even their hair – something otherwise considered very risqué in the KSA – in public.

If all this puts her off, she might consider a neighbouring country if she has her heart set on living and working in that part of the world. Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates are all rather less strict than Saudi Arabia.

I hope that helps.

By the way, how is Portugal for English teaching? Kelisi 02:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well, I've made some minor improvements to the West Lorne, Ontario article, including a link to a satellite image (yes, I'm sure that place in the picture is West Lorne). Kelisi 02:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Belle

You made a good point that the article on the band isn't up for deletion. Do you suggest I make an article on the band instead and include a section on the director? You probably know what it feels like to have your article deleted though. Also, for future reference, don't say "OMG". It makes you sound stupid... schyler 03:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

c'mon

I wasn't trying to be mean. Yah, I was kind of mad, but that doesn't mean you have to go on a rant about all the things I did wrong. I'm sorry if you took it personally. I just forgot to sign my comment that one time. I did read the criteria, and it looked to me like she was notable enough because it says right there in black and white that if the person has placed or won a major music competition they are notable. And about all the red links: maybe someone should make a page about it. Again, i'm sorry if you took it personally (which it sound like you did). schyler 03:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC) (happy?)[reply]

Re: North Berwick

Oops, looked fine when I did it! I rearranged the images again and it seems to look OK. Thanks for letting me know ::Supergolden:: 21:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks!

Okay, this is perhaps a bit overdue, but thank-you for your support in my recent RfA! I passed with a final ~~vote count~~ consensus of (82/1/0), which was a lot of support that I really appreciate. I'll try to live up to the expectations; and on that note, if there's ever something I do wrong (or don't do right), please spit in my general direction. Cheers! --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 05:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Liberty Dollar

After further research and reflection, I've come to believe that the Liberty Dollar entry should be merged with "Private currency" or "Community money" and redirected accordingly. This merge would help put this controversial topic into a broader context it desperately needs. Thank you for your participation. BrianGCrawfordMA 18:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

Thanks for encouraging my participation with regard to the Liberty Dollar controversy. Brian G. Crawford 03:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ

I drew that heartagram. Yes, the actual sign is copyrighten by HIM (and partialy by Bam Margera) but that's an original. That's like saying no one can draw one. I stated that I drew the heartagram, not that I own it. I'm not sure about this whole thing though. If you want to bring it up at WP:AN, that's fine. I'm not clear as to if my creation is a violation or not. Moe ε 05:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are you the "creator of this work"? This is as clear-cut a case of copyright violation as I've yet seen on WP. It's the intellectual property and trademark of HIM, which in turn Bam Margera has sub-licensed for a fee. Just because you drew a copy of it in MSPaint doesn't mean you created it, much less have the right to release it into the public domain under the GDFL - what if you did the same to the McDonald's M? You even gave it the filename "HIM logo". There is a tag for "logo" which you should immediately apply to this image. Copyrighted images can only be used on WP to identify the artists and works they belong to, which does not include being part of a WP editor's signature. This is exactly what all the picture licensing controls are designed to avoid. ++Deiz 05:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Your signature

I just noticed noticed something myself about your signature; it doesn't link to anything. I was going to go to your user page by clicking on your signature to find that it has no links. This is what is currently reads as your signature:

++Deiz

Maybe you could go through and add some links to it? Moe ε 14:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Gee... I thanks you for your kind remarks about me here. I didn't think anyone was going to see my message to Gators222 about the images but I guess I was wrong. ;-) Thanks again. Moe ε 00:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Athletes Copyvio

Hey thanks for catching that copy vio however could you note which page exactly was copied? Or was it many? I was just going through AFDs and if its just one large copy paste from that website i going to vote to delete it, but if its only parts it'd influence my decision a bit. Thanks! Mike _{(T C)} 06:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice the prohibition in the copyright violation notice you added against making edits until after I made one: sorry. However, it looks like you did not complete the submission of the possible violation - at the top of it there are some instructions to follow starting with "If you have just labeled this page as a possible copyright infringement, please add the following: Consequently, it does not appear to be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Additionally, looking at that site, they have fairly lenient copyright permission: "Permission is granted to all to take material from this site, subject to the following two conditions: (1) Material used must be attributed to www.islam-qa.com , (2) Material must be reproduced faithfully and without alteration or omission." Schizombie 10:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NORFED etc.

Quoting: But funnily enough you don't edit on topics concerning democracy, religion or freedom of association, do you Lance? In fact, it would appear that with very few exceptions in the 3 weeks you have been a contributing editor you only concern yourself with contributing to the Liberty Dollar article. Given your in-depth additions, link scattering, photo uploads and patronising edit summaries you might forgive me for harbouring suspicions that you are a NORFED "associate" who chooses to hide that fact... In fact, very few seem to be able to admit to being an associate when casting votes on this topic. Such editors do a great disservice to the ideals of Wikipedia, I hope you'll agree. Deiz 01:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

If you mean by that: Am I wise enough to leave huge sections of Wikipedia alone in areas where I am not extremely knowledgeable? You bet--I limit my involvement (or tampering--you choose) to areas where 1) I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about; and 2) where there's a SERIOUS need to fix it. I used to be a Registered Investment Advisor with the US Securities & Exchange Commission & branch manager of a nationwide investment banking firm. Yes I'm a NORFED member, no I don't hide it--no one's asked (never thought about it actually; since I'm one of the very few around here using their full-name, it wouldn't be hard to figure-out I'm a NORFED member). I belong to NORFED because I know what I do about finance! While I could edit Christianity pages (I'm working on a Doctorate in Ministry right now), I don't see the wildly uneducated rants & accusations there, like is on the Liberty Dollar page. PS: not sure where you got the 3 months editing figure...well over a year, probably 2 would be more accurate. Take care, --Lance W. Haverkamp 07:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amstrad CPC AfD

Hi Deiz, AfD is about whether a particular topic is appropriate for Wikipedia and not about the current state of the article. If there are excessive redlinks or inappropriate bluelinks, or if the article is incomplete, these are content issues and can be remedied through normal editing processes outside AfD. In determining whether an article topic is suitable for Wikipedia, the closing admin's responsibility is to determine whether there is consensus on the issue, rather than to decide which side is right. Rationales contrary to Wikipedia policy should not be viewed as contributing to the consensus, but I don't really see that here: for the most part the debate seemed to be about whether or not this list served a function separate from that of a category. I saw no consensus on this issue (certainly no supermajority) so I closed it as a no consensus. You can request that the decision be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review, if you like. Hope this helps, and if you have any other questions, please do let me know! Babajobu 07:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deiz, I referred to it as an article in the sense that all entries at AfD are "Articles for deletion". "As the closing admin I'm sure you looked at the list - does it serve a purpose separate to the existing category?" It appeared to me that this was an issue about which reasonable could (and did) disagree. My job wasn't to decide who was right, but to determine consensus. As you point out, it often only takes a few people to earn a "No consensus" on an AfD. The schools AfDs went on for months with school articles earning "no consensus" because a number of users felt strongly that they should be kept. Whether we like it or not, this is how AfD works for now, though it's also one of the reasons why so many people have requested that the AfD process be replaced with something else. For the time being, though, it's what we've got. I sympathize with you when you say that you don't understand why this entry should be in an encyclopedia...I think all of us here at Wikipedia can name numerous articles about which we feel that way. Again, sorry I can't be of more help, and remember again that you are welcome to take the issue to Wikipedia:Deletion review to get some more feedback. Regards, Babajobu 15:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Amstrad CPC games

Hi Rob, no shit the list contains lots of misdirected blue links and lots more besides... you can see my crusade to sort out this nightmare listcruft with the original AfD and the deletion review. However, the page has just survived AfD with no consensus - > keep, and also survived Deletion Review with "keep and cleanup" so I don't think it should be redirected right now. As per guidance from JzG, if the article isn't attended to by those who saved it, it will be renominated in due course. However, after all the recent debate over this page I don't think it should just be hidden and I'm going to revert the redirect. Hope you agree. Deiz 12:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't revert, but here's how I feel. We default to "keep" on "no consensus", because delete is permanent,and not easily reversed (more so in the past). We don't want to destroy information. That's the reason for the vote, and the caution. A redirect isn't a delete. No info is lost. Anybody can undo it. Editors are told to not go to AFD when it can be avoided. Redirecting is simply one type of regular edit. Like any other one, it doesn't require consensus support or a vote. Now if anybody contests a redirect (as has happened) than it's inappropriate to reimpose a redirect without a vote. That's why I'll leave it. But, I stress that there's a huge difference between a redirect and a delete. A delete (in Wikipedia) is like salting the Earth (or maybe scorch the Earth). For all practical purposes, information generally lost forever, and all work in an article is wasted (very unwiki). But, the redirect is harmless *if* done once. --Rob 16:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the technical side of your argument - that deletion is different to redirect - but you're missing my point. The page was kept on condition it gets cleaned up. If you hide it behind a redirect, nobody gets to see it and it stays the same. If somebody had redirected this before it went to AfD, then great. This article has been through AfD and deletion review, the decision was to "keep and cleanup". Not to "pretend it isn't there but if somebody really wants to deal with it and is prepared to do some digging in the history it could get re-instated sometime in the future". I genuinely want to see if anybody will deal with this list. If nobody cares about it then it isn't encyclopedic information and it's getting nominated again. You obviously have a good grasp of Wiki policy but you have to consider the merits of each case too. Deiz 20:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you have a fair point. A redirect before an AFD is better. One after an AFD, has some problems. I've done this before, but on articles that never had an AFD. Another controversial approach, is to remove most of the information, but not all. This follows WP:V (which says unverified info can be removed). This leaves the cleanup tag/category in place, but no false information. Strip it down to a about half dozen valid/confirmed items, move the rest to the talk page, and slap a "incomplete list" tag on it (so people know it's incomplete). Anyways, I won't do further edits on this page, as I acknowledge I don't have a good solution. --Rob 20:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marduk

You shouldn't have change Marduk: World Funeral description it was there for a long time. I just updated the album with an infobox. Are you sure the rest of the information was not true? Please put an answer on my talk page User talk:Death2. Death2 16:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied Deizio 13:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Death2

OK! Thanks for the tips. I apologize for "shouldn't have". I just wanted to say that the information was relativly good, and the article was edited shortly after I updated it, when you noticed that it was recently edited. Before that it was lacking attention... Anyway I hope you understood what I am trying to say and the article is probably better this way. As for my English... By the way Children Of Bodom rock! Death2 07:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: VfD for "Masters of Destruction"

I liked what you implied in your words to User:JJay about how he should clean up the article if he's heard so much about its subject. I think it's the worst kind of hypocrisy to vote to keep an article and then refuse to fix it when reasonably asked to do so, but I may hold a minority view. See User talk:BrianGCrawfordMA for some rather nasty responses to my request to clean up Sexual Victimization of Native American Women. As I recall, five voted to keep it, and it was kept. I didn't even know about the VfD or get to vote, but rather found the article later. It remained substandard, so I left messages on the talk pages of those users who voted to keep, asking them to fix the article. Well, they didn't like this very much, and gave me a piece of their vengeful, petty little minds. The funny thing was that in the time it took for them to tell me what they thought about me asking them to help, they could have fixed at least one sentence of the article. Brian G. Crawford 20:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Written in Portuguese, ask me if you want it in English instead

Minha resposta a sua mensagem: Perdão senhor, talvez tem razão, mais não vou perder tempo com isto. Não creio que uma explanação em muitas detalhes é necessária. Você não deve agir tão grosseiro tampouco. Até logo. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Estou esperando. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about?

Hey Deiz, I edited Richard O'Brien to tone down refs to two Richard O'Briens. You revert to a previous version and in the edit summary state "Reverting to remove absurd edits. If you want to continue this bizarre "2 richard o'brien" nonsense then I'll see you on the talk page." Precisely what "bizarre nonsense" do you mean, and what were my "absurd edits"? Moriori 01:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (66/2/3), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! Stifle 17:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Horror

They had a go at these too: The Rocky Horror Show, The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Arniep 02:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you, good sir! By the way, I don't know if you are interested in skateboarding at all, but I might be starting a Wikiproject:Skateboarding (temporarily at User:Liface/Skateboarding.

Lol

Thanks for your support vote, even if it was a little late :-) --kingboyk 04:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You got it Deizio 12:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Help

I'd like for you to answer the questions outlined in the Ncaabbs deletion discussion page. Those have not been addressed, and I have now asked for the 3rd time. Thanks.