User talk:DragonflySixtyseven/Archive11

Deletion of Assessing Performance of a Photovoltaic Installation

Dear DragonflySixtyseven, I can see your reasoning to delete this entry. However, I need your suggestion on how to make it into an anticle. It is a topic dear to my heart and I do believe there are people who can really benefit from this knowledge. This write-up was motivated after observing hundreds of PV installations under-perform from various causes. Much of it were undetected, due to lack of knowledge. In actuality, a good percentage(over 50%) of all non-commercial installations underperform up to 50% below their expected output. Thanks for your prompt assistance

Note: I have moved this comment to the bottom of the list in the hopes of getting a response to my question of 24 Aug 2008 Original posting date: 17:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Swbyang (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of The rest is silence (Hamlet Quote)

My motivation for writing the article was because I was seeing this quote attributed to a lot of incorrect sources. It then struck me that if there are dozens of references in other works then perhaps other people would want to be able to look up.

I am just curious what made it not an article

Spandox (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Opis

I'm not going to wheel war, and I know the wrong version is always protected, but you've allowed an editor to delete all sourced text and leave an illiterate stub. Wouldn't it be better to leave the last sourced version rather than this? It was well-sourced by very reputable academics, and the sources were recent. You've stepped into a nationlist dispute and I just can't understand why you have allowed an un-sourced version to remain. Doug Weller (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In what way is replacing a properly sourced version with a totally unsourced, illiterate stub, not blatant vandalism? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments at Talk:Battle_of_Opis#MY_FELLOW_WIKIPEDIANS_DO_YOUR_GD_RESEARCH.21. ChrisO`s version solely relied on a false translation of a historic text, now discredited by academia as a mistranslation. --CreazySuit (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the nub of the problem: CreazySuit and his fellow nationalists are attempting to declare, on the basis of their own personal belief, that a very recent hypothesis is "the truth" - a categorical violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the nub, editors making decisions like that, one academic isn't 'academia'. I've consulted an academic about the situation and it's pretty clear that 'academia' hasn't decided anything. See the talk page for the comments he made.

Or rather the nub is that you chose not to revert the removal of sourced text, not to warn editors removing sourced text, not to step in and try to get resolution, not to ask any other administrators involved what they thought, but just blocked. Doug Weller (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you possibly have another look at this today? It would be helpful if we could get this sorted out. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've made a statement on the article's talk page. DS (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I am leaving home, but I will look into your suggestion once I return. I have a meeting with a few of my colleagues, and I am trying to get in touch with the original author of the disputed/false translation, so we can get to the bottom of this issue for the sake of Wikipedia's integrity as a reliable source. --CreazySuit (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for getting back to you so late, I have looked into your suggestion, and I agree with it in principle, at least as a temporary solution. You could also ask Lambo and the other disputing editors for their opinions as well. --CreazySuit (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yorick von Fortinbras deletion...WHY?

Why was the Yorick von Fortinbras article deleted? I can't see the deletion logs. This is a real author with real books on Amazon. I don't get it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhdude99 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Request on IRC

I've checked through his contribs, and it looks like to be primarily good faith, however, he could probably do with some coaching regarding various policies, such as those on external links, notability, and copyrights/speedy deletion. If you want me to check again/someone else, you know where to find me :) --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 05:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of GoGiving.org

Dear DragonflySixtyseven, I added "GoGiving.org" to Wikipedia and found out that it has been deleted by you. Could you please explain me why it has been deleted? I put a lot of my time and care for that entry and I don't even know why it has been deleted.

Please restore it or describe why it has been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilanthropyMaster (talk • contribs) 08:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sincerely yours, PhilanthropyMaster —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilanthropyMaster (talk • contribs) 11:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of the CAF Airpower Museum page

Deletion of the CAF Airpower Museum Page. Sir, you deleted a page that was created by me an employee of the CAF Airpower Museum, Midland, TX. I had demand that you undelete this page and restore it. If you do not believe I am credible enough you may e-mail my boss the Director of the CAF Airpower Museum at director@aahm.org or you may certainly call me at 432-563-1000 ext. 2252.CAFAirpower (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of the CAF Airpower Museum page

Deletion of the CAF Airpower Museum Page. Sir, you deleted a page that was created by me an employee of the CAF Airpower Museum, Midland, TX. I had demand that you undelete this page and restore it. If you do not believe I am credible enough you may e-mail my boss the Director of the CAF Airpower Museum at director@aahm.org or you may certainly call me at 432-563-1000 ext. 2252.CAFAirpower (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of Daily featured Article 9/24/08

Thank you for fixing the obvious vicious attack on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.72.122 (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Opis redux

Re Battle of Opis, I've done some significant rewriting which you can see at User:ChrisO/Battle of Opis. Only three words (!) of the translation are actually disputed - I've therefore split this out and noted the existence of two corroborating translations (Grayson and Glassner), followed by Lambert's alternative version. I've also added a couple of lines referencing more sources which discuss interpretations of the translated text.

Regarding the other editors, almost all of the noise has been coming from Ariobarza and CreazySuit, both of whom are parroting this rather long-winded tract by Kaveh Farrokh which protests recent media reporting about the Cyrus cylinder. See page 12 of the PDF. (It's interesting that Farrokh appears to be unaware of Glassner's independent translation - an ignorance reflected by Ariobarza and CreazySuit.) Both Ariobarza and CreazySuit argue, per Farrokh, that the translation is "outdated", "false", "discredited" etc. They claim that the translation and anything based on it should be discarded. The following diffs illustrate this:

• [1] - Ariobarza argues that the translation is "OUTDATED"
• [2] - CreazySuit to me: "You are pushing a FALSE TRANSLATION, that is unacceptable."
• [3] - CreazySuit: "OUTDATED FALSE TRANSLATION, discredited by LINGUISTS and modern HISTORIANS"
• [4] - Ariobarza copies and pastes Farrokh's tract, showing where they're both getting this from
• [5] - CreazySuit: "outdated falsified, totally discredited, translation"

There's more like this, but you get the idea. If we're trying to write a serious historical piece here - which I am - then I really don't think it's acceptable for these two editors to use the views of a psychologist with a sideline in nationalist pseudohistory to disqualify 30 years' worth of work by real historians. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

DragonflySixtyseven, this is yet another attempt by ChrisO to suppress opposing views. Not only is he marginalizing Lambert's most recent, and most reliable translation (published in a academic journal, as opposed to books), he is also totally overlooking the fact that oldest and most widely used translation by Oppenheim, is actually in line with Lambert's translation, and confirms Lambert's account. Khoikhoi had commented on this issue here. As I stated earlier today on your talk page DragonflySixtyseven, I don't have a problem with your suggestion of a compromise, as long as the compromise is authored by you though, similar to how you worded it on the talk page. I have absolutely no trust in anything ChrisO writes, he is essentially a sophisticated/subtle POV-pusher who is good at cherry-picking sources to create an illusion of an academic consensus, and suppresses all opposing views and interpretations of a historical item or event, under different pretexts.--CreazySuit (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's be very clear about what you and Ariobarza have argued. You've attempted to declare that Lambert's translation is "the truth" and all other translations are "false", "outdated", discredited" (your words). You disagree with any research based on previous translations, which effectively means all of it, since no academic source has even cited Lambert's translation yet - it's simply too new and too obscure. There isn't any corroboration that Lambert has got it right, not that that's any of our concern - we're not here to arbitrate disputes between different academics. You wouldn't even know about Lambert if it wasn't for the tract being circulated by the psychologist Farrokh - you didn't know about Glassner's independent translation because Farrokh doesn't mention it and you've not bothered to do any research of your own. You've wiped out an entire sourced article because your personal POV disagrees with what mainstream academic historians say, as your edit summary here makes abundantly clear. This kind of thing is what WP:NPOV and WP:V were written to prohibit. You don't get to stand in judgment about what is the "most reliable translation". That's up to the academic community, not you and not pseudohistorians like Farrokh. We're here to report the academic community's interpretation, not yours. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This version is hardly a compromise. It still basically cherry-picks the same sources from the previous one. Khoikhoi 03:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Compromise between what - Farrokh's views and those of real historians? I used Grayson's translation for the sole reason that it's the one used by modern historians. Glassner and Kuhrt independently give the same or very similar translations in works published within the last four years. I've focused on using modern translations and modern interpretations by historians. Oppenheimer's translation is much older - 1950s, I think - and I've only found a handful of works using it, mostly from the 1960s and 1970s. Grayson's translation is used by more sources and more recent sources - as Lambert himself says, it's the "accepted translation". -- ChrisO (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of City Heights Free Skool page

Hi,

You deleted our City Heights Free Skool page for supposed copyright violations. I am a member of the organization and I know that nothing on that page was copyrighted. Can you please restore the page so that we continue to use Wikipedia as a resource for the community?

Thanks, Donkilo (talk) La Eskuela Libre —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC).

We added the sentence about the GNU license to the original article published on our website. Can you restore our page to its previous glory? Obrigado!

Donkilo (talk) La Eskuela Libre —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC).

Mikeydotcomdotau

My username does not refer to a commercial site. You can check it out using your web browser. Toward that end, it is no more promotional than an email address (the reason I bought the domain - to have an easy email address that folks can easily commit to memory). I think you can easily put to rest your concerns regarding any commercial interest - my website has mostly photos of my kids. I disagree with your view that I should change my username, and will not unless forced to. The username policy, w"Promotional usernames are used to promote a group or company on Wikipedia." Mine clearly does not.

I have to say that for my first wikipedia entry, your response was pretty unfriendly, that you didn't bother to check your facts, and that you seem not to "assume good faith". I was going to write another 3 entries about OH&S related topics, but maybe Wikipedia isn't for me, if this is the sort of bickering one can expect. The history of your changes speaks volumes about you - shutting down community school pages and criticising newcomers for their usernames!

Have a Nice Day!

Michael Nelson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeydotcomdotau (talk • contribs) 10:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael, this is a bit unfair. We wouldn't want you to use your email address as your username also. See Wikipedia:Username policy His comment on your talk page wasn't unfriendly. And as you seem to know about assuming good faith, I really think you should have done the same for DragonflySixtyseven. And although I know this may annoy you, the article you've been contributing to is Job Safety Analysis is original research and I've tagged it so. Also, you shouldn't put links to your own website (or in general, any personal website) on it. I've put a menu at the top of your talk page so you can learn more about how Wikipedia works. Doug Weller (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of The rest is silence (Hamlet Quote)

This is a repeated request for reasoning why a quote (that has been the source of dozens of books, album names, and various other media titles) attribution is not noteworthy; especially when it is occasionally misattributed. The last request received no cometary. Spandox (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I explained last week. Read your own talk page. DS (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

PSP 10 Ten Wanted

Why was this deleted? Mrmcdonnell (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:South Park Garbage

Woah!

You recently posted something about me posting "garbage" in a South Park episode, but I can't seem to figure out what I did? Can you assert what this "garbage" I put into a South Park article is on my talk as well as provide a link to the page? Also, please don't attack me the way you did. Thanks! Meisfunny Gab 23:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Opis

Why is the article under full protection for two weeks? I've never seen an article protected for so long because of edit warring. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you're not feeling well. (I've been recovering from flu myself - not a pleasant thing to have.) You might be interested to know that Jehochman has started a discussion on AN/I about the three editors who've been disrupting this article - see WP:AN/I#User:Ariobarza, User:CreazySuit and User:Larno Man and the subsection at WP:AN/I#Disruption of Battle of Opis. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Languages

Apologies. This article was not meant to be tagged, as I clicked an incorrect article. This has been reverted. PoinDexta1 | Talk to Me | 03:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Sorkin

Hi: I'm hoping to eventually calm down once all the sickness has been excised from the article. Please help me cite some of the facts. Many of them are erroneous. Many sentences are awkward and meaningless.-Homely Features (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

BlackHawk (band) vs. BlackHawk

Since you're one of the editors who suggested I fix the BlackHawk/BlackHawk (band) thing myself, what do you think? Does the band's page really need a "(band)" at the end or not? I think not, because there's nothing else that uses the exact spelling BlackHawk. Yes, I moved it against consensus at the time, but since the move a.) nobody's tried to move it back, and b.) a couple other editors have suggested that I was right in moving it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Just because i feel like giving out some barnstars :) creaɯy!Talk 00:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for KF Lepenci

An editor has asked for a deletion review of KF Lepenci. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I was the admin who restored the article above (and wasn't aware of the WP:DRV), so I just wanted to tell you I'm sorry I overturned your speedy without contacting you. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Houde

Hello!, For your question on fr:WP about the absence of trial of Camillien Houde, the answer is very easy, as this episode is very well known and documented. Of course, there was no trial. You can take any of the sources. All sources agree. So, it's not like there were any question about it. Existing biographies and other references are mentioned in the article. You can also read the debates of the House of Commons for those years. The fact that there had been no trial was, of course, one of the central points at the time and when his liberation was asked. Since there is not even any shred of doubt about it, I hardly see why this particular sentence in the article should be burdened with a reference. Or I suppose that if there's really a need to add one, it could be a reference mentioning every existing book, because actually it can easily be found in all of them. As for the false mention that has been inserted into the en:WP article, you can easily verify in the article history that this mention was added by one of a few prolific trolls (this particular one is banned on en:WP since 2005) whose main specialty is adding falsehoods and spreading their xenophobic prejudices, generally about Canadians of French origin, often in WP articles about Canadian history. Unfortunately, if you look well enough, you can also see that many articles on en:WP are still plagued with the sequels of this activity of disinformation. You happened to stumble upon one small example. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of House of Frankenstein (Play)

I see the entry. I read the words. But I can't figure out why you would have deleted the page for House of Frankenstein (Play). Or who you are (with relation to this play or to Wikipedia) or what you have to do with House of Frankenstein, or why you would take it upon yourself to go around deleting pages in the first place. For reasons which have only to do with you. Editing I can see. Notating I can see. But deleting? The work of someone else's (in your case, a whole lot of someone elses) hand? I have no doubt that this entry will be deleted, but I must post it nonetheless. Just who are you, DragonflySixtyseven, and upon what authority have you taken it upon yourself to delete (among other articles) the article on House of Frankenstein (Play)? 161.254.5.251 (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Zebetz

I'm a Wikipedia administrator. This gives me the authority to delete pages if they're inappropriate. This was inappropriate. As I recall, that one was "notability not asserted". It said nothing about whether it was a huge success that played to full houses each night for six months straight in the West End, or whether it was something put on by a bunch of bright eleven-year-olds one afternoon. No clue. Article can be re-created if it's worth it. DS (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Little context in Category:1977 animal deaths

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:1977 animal deaths, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:1977 animal deaths is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:1977 animal deaths, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Alexandra_Paressant

Thought you would be interested to see this --Dweller (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Livecare Support

After your removal I removed the "advertisement like" phrases. I hope this is enough. The page is to complete the Comparison of remote desktop software. Please consider the pages of the other product. I think that they are more "advertisement" than Livecare Support. Please reply before modifying the page. Thanks a lot. Alfax (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Side of Right 2009 Deletion

Excuse me, Why did our page get deleted? We did nothing wrong. People are constantly deleting our page and we absolutley nothing! Can you please unblock my account and let me resume to my article. I am a journalist doing an article on this feature film. Bring it back. Please. We did nothing wrong! please bring it back.

Deletion of Wrong Side of Right 2009

We did not do anything wrong, and you blocked my IP address?! We did nothing wrong. I am a journalist who got permission from the movie makers to add the article. please restore it. Please unblock my IP address. We didnt break any rules. We are clean. Please i am begging you restore Wrong Side of Right 2009. Please unblock my IP and restore the page ASAP. please answer me. These people are blocking our IP addresses and deleting our pages and we did NOTHING!! please restore it! PLEASE. Everything is ok. their are references and eveything. Nothing is wrong. PLEASE, PLEASE restore this article and unblock my IP.  

No. The whole thing was totally unverifiable, which is a polite way of saying "it looks to me like you made the whole damn thing up; there's no evidence it exists outside your head". DS (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Which Article

Which article was tagged as vandalism ? Waterden (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• I follow but I personally think there was malice involved and I still think it was a deliberate act of vandalism. Others I have tagged as nonsense or no context, that particular one was vandalism in my opinion as there was a gang of two or three 'editors' helping eack other out at the time on different articles. Seemed to stop instatly the others were banned. I took into consideration good faith and decided there was none. Am off to be its 1am here. Have fun nuking 12 year olds ! Waterden (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please delete this article also

Witch doctor (Band), that article also meets the speedy deletion criteria. -- IRP ☎ 23:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Side of Right

Hi, I saw that you blocked David Universal. Here is another for you: D Universal212. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The Bolster

You said in your edit summary "notability not asserted" when just a few minutes earlier I had put the words "notable" and "significant" plus a reference into the article ... why? Abtract (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Just drawing your attention to this unanswered query. Abtract (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This question was answered on Abtract's talk page, on October 11. DS (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it was. Apologies again for missing it but I had a lot on my plate! Abtract (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of City Heights Free Skool page

We added the sentence about the GNU license to the original article published on our website. Can you restore our page to its previous glory? Obrigado! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.136.115 (talk) 07:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of user page? Iron Front gaming family?

please re instate the page. it is a link off of the Mafia Cities page. wich is a page describing the game and what it was like. soon to be expanded. many more people are going to put thier family pages on the game site too. so please. re instate my page.

Tsvbfeb (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Dragonfly.

I was going to move that page to sandbox untill it was less "add"-ish and more proffessional.

please allow me to do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsvbfeb (talk • contribs) 00:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

i am not seeking a free web post i mearly want to post about a great game that is NOT in wikipedia yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsvbfeb (talk • contribs) 00:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Mafia Cities

Hi Dragonfly. As noted at MfD, the user plans to move his Mafia Cities draft to article space within the next few days. Please consider restoring this so that he may retrieve the delete content. Since the editor is new and is sincere in creating Mafia Cities, this probably would be better handled through AfD. That way, there is a possiblity of retaining a new editor. Also, there may be some reliable source material. See Google. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 00:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Questionable

Hi. Regarding the article Commit Suiside/Commit Suicide. First, you moved it "as per OTRS". Please provide edit summaries that are understandable to regular and new users alike. Second, shortly after this you deleted the article altogether. Because "notability not asserted". This is debatable as three newspaper articles from two countries were cited. So why? Punkmorten (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability tag versus A7

Hi DragonflySixtyseven

You recently deleted the {{Notability}} tag on Kingdom of Araba, with the summary comment "notability IS asserted". Unlike a nomination for speedy deletion for articles that do not asset the notability of their subject, the {{Notability}} tag is pretty clearly about whether the article in fact satisfies WP:N, not whether it is asserted. Did you mean something other than your comment, or am I misunderstanding something about the use of the {{Notability}} tag?

Bongomatic (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd reapplied the tag prior to your response. Remove it again if you wish, and I won't contest it. Frankly, the article has less information on its named topic than Hatra, and it's not clear to me what level of historical "geopolitical entity" is automatically notable--this one is only semi-autonomous. Bongomatic (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

DragonflySixtyseven II (?)

Hello, is this you? In that case some other users might appreciate an explanation on your talk page there. Otherwise this could be a trolling account. Cheers, 217.209.198.110 (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's me. DS (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi DS! I am sorry to bother you again regarding the Klarström/Ekberg issue, but could you please provide the full OTRS ticket number so I can crosscheck and add the information in swedish? I just want to avoid any future confusion, and the link you provided is nothing I can use to track the ticket down i OTRS. I woulds appreciate if you could reply on the Klarström talk page on sv: Cheers, Riggwelter (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of the links you provided work. An OTRS ticket is usually 16 digits long and begins with the date, for example 2008072012345678. That's the number I need. There is no OTRS ticket 2057021, at least not in the queues where I have access. If there is such a ticket, please state which queue it's in, and forward the closed ticket to the info-sv queue for cross-check. Sorry for the inconvenience, but I think it is important that the information may be clarified in swedish, if the discussion should arise in the future. Riggwelter (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we rename "Stratolab" article to "Strato-Lab Program" (?)

Hello. There is a "Stratolab" article stub incorrectly titled as far as I can tell, because its subject matter is the "Strato-Lab Program" not a "Stratolab platform," that it claims to document. Can we change the title? I can write the article as soon as I have time as I've been researching this material with regards to "Malcolm Ross (balloonist)".

The "Strato-Lab Program" was the 1950s US Navy (Office of Naval Research or ONR) high-altitude balloon project, in the era of similar projects--such as the Air Force "Project Manhigh" (which Wikipedia titles "Project Manhigh," not "Manhigh", in its article). And Strato-Lab was actually a much longer program than project Manhigh, with many more ascents. Malcolm Ross documented the project in the literature as the "Strato-Lab Program". Although some of the literature indicates otherwise (eg "Touching Space: The Story of Project Manhigh"), there doesn't seem to be any "Stratolab platform" as indicated in the stub. The program made 5 numbered stratospheric balloon ascents labeled Strato-Lab 1 through Strato-Lab 5, as well as other unnumbered ascents. The numbered and unnumbered ascents used various open and pressurized gondolas, many or possibly all of them manufactured by Winzen Research/General Mills. But no single platform called Stratolab as indicated by the stub. I recommend using "Stratolab" as a redirection and/or disambiguation, but not as the title. Courage, John Mikesell, Catrachos (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Requesting info on blocking SieBot

Hi. Can you please provide some insight on the one day block you gave to SieBot recently? I do not see any info on my talk page, SieBot's talk page, or my main talk page on nl:User_talk:Siebrand. Siebrand (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Darn, my bad. I missed the "2007", thought that was 2008. Back then I probably knew why :) Cheers! Siebrand (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jeff Moy

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Jeff Moy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RMHED (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Phil Moy

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Phil Moy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RMHED (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Your Prod reverts

I do hope you'll find at least one source for those BLP's or they will all be going to AfD. RMHED (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Rollback should only be used for vandalism. RMHED (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • This use of rollback has been mentioned on WP:AN/I#Prod reverts. Please do comment. RMHED (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, about that DragonFly, I tend to agree that regardless of whether RHMED is correct or not about prodding those articles (I make no call on that matter), they are clearly not vandalism and you should not use rollback to remove them. That's considered abuse of the tool and will result in having it revoked if you continue. — Coren ^(talk) 02:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Abuse that does not technically violate 3RR

Hi DS, can you suggest what should be done about a situation where an editor has repeatedly deleted notability and reference tags without improving the article, and refuses to address the issues on her (I assume) or the article's talk page? Please see:

• diff 1
• diff 2
• diff 3
• comment on editor's page
• Talk:MatsuriCon#MatsuriCon IS Significant comment on article talk page

Thanks for your help. Bongomatic (talk) 08:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Livecare Support: another concurrent was published in Wikipedia

As I mentioned before I re-written my Livecare Support article User:Alfax/Livecare_Support to let published and linked on Comparison of remote desktop software. In the same time, another Livecare concurrent Teamviewer was published in Comparison of remote desktop software page. I do ask you to unlock the Livecare Support page to complete the information regarding this theme.

Please help me to understand what is the difference between the articles. I wait your reply. thanks Alfax (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Discover (Why The Love Hurts), the single by Elliot Minor

Hi DragonflySixtyseven

Just wondering why you deleted the "Discover (Why The Love Hurts)" page. It wasn't made up. So why did you delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankeyte (talk • contribs) 01:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so you mean the single doesn't exist yet or what? It doesn't come out till January. So, your saying that since it's not out yet, it shouldn't have an article? That's stupid. There are many things in Wikipedia that hasn't come out yet. Why do you insist that since the single hasn't come out yet, it shouldn't have an article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankeyte (talk • contribs) 02:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

deletion of List of fictional record companies

i am unable to figure out why you speedy deleted it--the explanation in the deletion summary was "surely not" and I am having trouble aligning this with the accepted reasons for speedy deletion. Perhaps I am missing something. s could you explain ,or revert and send to AfD. DGG (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

70.128.86.111 (talk · contribs)

Hi!

I noticed that you blocked this user for vandalism. I wonder if the block isn't a bit too long, especially considering it's their first block. Maybe shortening it to 24hr would be sufficient?

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, me again. Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a dick but I find some of the other blocks you made today a bit excessive and the block durations read as almost arbitrary, ie "142 days 29 hours 101 minutes 8 seconds". I know that vandals can get annoying but I'd hate to see even one vandal-turned-potentially-good-contributor be driven away. Would you consider shortening some of those blocks so they're somewhat more appropriate?

Thanks again! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. 70.128.86.111 (talk · contribs) is not a repeat offender, he's never even received a final warning but got blocked for over 2 months on his first block. 142.29.101.8 (talk · contribs) has also never been blocked before but is now blocked for almost 5 months. Although I find the humour in the block lengths now, I still think they're inappropriate. I really think they should be blocked for no more than 24 or 31 hours on their first block. Would you consider changing them? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, fella! By the way, where are you from in Canada, if you don't mind me asking. I live in Kitchener, Ontario...for the time being. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoover (seal)

You did several touchups on this article and you updated a reference. I checked to see what has changed since I last edited it over a year ago and says that Hoover was found outside Harpswell, Maine. When I looked up my sources, I couldn't find a specific place named except Maine -- nothing about Harpswell and it is not backed up by the reference that is attached to that paragraph (or I overlooked it). Did you find any references that named the place directly? - Mgm|^(talk) 16:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• I know you didn't add it, but I doubt the anon who did would respond now. I figured you'd have an idea because you seemed to have given the article some detailed attention. Thanks for the sources. I'll give them a look and see if there's something in there I can use. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

"ORK ORK ORK *slaps flippers together*"?

Since when are you a seal? :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

deletion discussion of Raymond Grissom

I understand that there should be more NOTABILITY but you're not the first person to try to delete this page. Two other people have tagged it and then listened and have said that neither A3 nor A7 arguments apply here. If you really read those articles you would realise that he has done something particularly notable. He has come from a family on food stamps to Yale University full ride with many scholarships, captain of Rugby teams, youth ambassador in Germany...what more do you need? The truth of the matter is..that there ARE many kids like him out there. But they are always overlooked, we see more rich teens doing superfluous things on TV and internet than kids like Ray here. He isn't the only kid, I know but someone somewhere must start making kids like him the example of how youths should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackcheck20 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC) 1 Blackcheck20 (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI Thread

Hello, DragonflySixtyseven. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding you. The discussion can be found here. Thank you. --ChaoticReality 03:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing through protection [per OTRS' on Sofia Shinas

I see you've been asked before to give more information than just 'per OTRS'. Now I haven't dealt with this situation before, so is it normal to not give any other information that 'per OTRS' (in your edit and I see on the talk page). dougweller (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am raising a question about the validity of what I've been given to understand was a submission of a birth certificate that supposedly confirms the birthdate of Shinas. I'd like to refer you to this sock puppet case, which includes a myriad of newly registered SPAs that have worked for a year and a half trying to change the birthdate on this article, giving rationales such as "edit age.... went to school with Sophia", "I have a copy of the birth certificate that her brother gave me", "wrong birthdate", "dob found in (information listed in London newspaper)", "changed her birthdate. I should know, I was her public school teacher", "her birthday year is wrong ( I attend usc with her - this is her cousins birthday who haooens to ahare the same name, She is also working on another film", and Julia Stiles (!) who said "edited birthdate, and catagory information from London Ontario. Went to school with her and this is her correct birthdate". Finally, one of the SPAs asked "How do I contact the Wikipedia people directly. I actually have a copy of Sofia's birth certificate which does in fact state that her birth year is 1974. I know her brother very well,so he doesnt have a problem with my sharing the doc with you." That seems to be an issue to me, that this person is willing to "share" a copy of a birth certificate that was supposedly received from an actress's brother and indicates no direct permission to submit anything, from anybody. I want to note also that the person who posted that inquiry (Annemarie.lalande (talk • contribs) shares the same basic username as Anne Marie Lalonde (talk • contribs), who, if you'll note, originally submitted a birthdate change based on a "London newspaper" here. At that time, Pinkadelica posted her note doubting that it was the same person. All of this is extremely suspicious and honestly, I think someone is trying to dupe OTRS. How easy would it be to come up with a birth certificate copy that backs up a year and a half of SPA account activity when pressed for it? Maybe Sofia Shinas did contact OTRS, but if it was anyone else, I would question its authenticity and maybe wait for the sock puppet case to determine just what is going on? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, there's a thread at ANI about it (WP:ANI#Admin_editing_protected_article). You might have been tricked, to be honest... Dunno... -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

And apologies from me, I missed your response on my talk page, I was looking here. My mistake. We still don't seem to have agreement on this yet though. dougweller (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Info Directions, Inc. deletion

I am a little confused as to why this page was deleted. This is a legitimate company on the same playing field as companies that are currently listed on Wikipedia (Intec, Mind CTI and Verisign -- the telecom billing division, Boston Communications Group and the like). I have looked for and found many private companies listed on Wikipedia across many industries so I don't think there is a bias against private companies versus public companies on Wikipedia. I would just like more information about why this particular post was deleted and what needs to be done for it to be accepted.

I believe it is vital that the business community embrace the importance of the Wiki and Wikipedia itself as a resource, which is why I am back for advice. What are the key elements in a business post that you look at to determine whether it is informational or ad-like? What are the "deal killers?" I have read the guidelines, but I must be missing the nuances. Any assistance would be appreciated. SMIC (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)SMIC

The Stupid Gun!

Hi..way back in April my sci-fi comic story articel 'The Stupid Gun!' was deleted by you for no reason..please can you verify this?

i mean it didnt make sense why you deleted it

rubbafet@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.211.122 (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Because it was just a plot summary of a three-week story in Judge Dredd. It didn't say anything about what made this different or special or notable. DS (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sniff, sniff

Your talk page is overweight and sad. Cheer it up by archiving it. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The Stupid Gun 2!

So why are you allowed to make that decision?...Many Judge Dredd and Sci-fi fans may have been interested to read that article....so if i put in 'what' made the story different and unique etc..which i can....are you going to delete it again?

I'm allowed to make that decision because I'm an administrator. As for "what makes that story different and unique" - go read the articles in Category:Judge Dredd storylines. Can you make an article as informative as those? If you can, then it can stay. If not, then it'll get deleted again. DS (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You missed your chance to reply with I am the Law --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Ohlson Lavoie Collaborative

Why exactly did you delete this article I was working on?? I work for an architectural firm and I see many many many other architectural firms that were not deleted. I put lot of time into our firms Wiki page and I went to view it today and it was gone. Please explain. awright@olcdesigns.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wright4design (talk • contribs) 00:00, November 7, 2008 --- Moved from user page by --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the deleted content, it was rightly deleted under WP:CSD G11 Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In appreciation of your work

		The Special Barnstar
		Presented in appreciation of your contributions to Wikipedia. Keep up the fine work! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Alanas Chošnau

Hi DS67, I see you removed the {prod} tag from the above-captioned article, saying in the edit summary that "notability IS asserted". What is the assertion of notability to which you refer? It would be helpful to note that in the edit summary in the future, by the way. Bongomatic 17:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Mexican magazine

Sure! Send me an email at aweasley@hotmail.com for details about it. Cheers. ArthurWeasley (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

shoutout

You have been deleting a number of articles with that as the justification. What of the actual speedy criteria were you meaning to use? DGG (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Moved Neil Stonechild article back from your move to 'the death of'

There was no explanation of the move. Please do not move the article without a full explanation and discussion the talk page. Thanks. --Fremte (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Giordano Memorization System Deleted

I was wondering about the deletion of the article 'Giordano Memorization System'. You put apparent copyvio with the deletion, but I was actually asked by the copyright owner to write that article. Please let me know how we can fix this situation :) Fainaent 8:14, 17 Novemember 2008

Sami Yusuf

I guess you did not check the source I put in the talk page of the article. Sami Yusuf in his recent interview said he was born in Tehran, "beautiful city of Tehran", he emphasized and he considers Iran "his" country. He added that his is "ethnically" Azari and did not elaborate if that meant he was from North or South of Aras river (so being an Azeri descent is vague). He, again, repeated, his is a British citizen, culturally Iranian and his ethnicity is Azari. Here is the interview in youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL7cFoL1rdw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Persian Magi (talk • contribs) 08:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

OTRS alias membership

Hi DS,

How can we verify that you are on OTRS membership. Is it possible to have exact text of Sami Yusuf's email, where he is saying he is not Iranian. We have conflicting evidence otherwise, as per her recent interview, where he clearly mentions Iran as his country and he considers himself culturally Iranian (His words are in English and audible in the interview).

Persian Magi (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you are |here and not [6]. Anyhow, why a public statement should not prevail a personal email to OTRS, especially if the public statement is a more recent one? Any regulations that can help us here? Thanks Persian Magi (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info

Actually, its my foult, but I did not find the option of public domain for these photos. According to Albanian laws, every work, has no copyright holder, 70 years after its publication. But such an option is not in wiki. What should I do? Thanks again.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is the law, but only in Albanian.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Tales of the City character

Heya. Caught your edit to Save Our Children. My source quotes Maupin saying it was a remarkable coincidence. You changed that. Do you have differing information? --Moni3 (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

deletion of List of fictional record companies

Why was this article deleted? The reason given was "absolutely not", what does that mean? Books++ (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

re: Erni Arneson

Oops - sorry about that! Hopefully no harm done. Is there a link to correspondence (purely for my own reference)? Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Lugnuts (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Etorofu

why did you move Japanese escort Etorofu to Etorofu? Loosmark (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Giordano Memorization System Deleted

Is there any way to have the author of the System give permission for that article to be used on Wikipedia? He reviewed the article after I wrote it and approved of it. Thanks for your help. Fainaent 8:14, 17 Novemember 2008

Reversed psychology is a rulebook head's worse enemy

There are those who devotedly go by the rules. There are also those who think the rules are bias which is why they go against them. With regards to why rule-breakers do what they do, I recommend we should talk to them courteously as possible and try not to be rude. Communicating in such a hateful way sometimes motivates them more to break rules rather than convincing them not to. We must understand them deep within. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.123.128 (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Would appreciate your guidance

Hi

As a new wikipedian,I was keen to create two articles on a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada . Both are highly respected societies but I am trepidated to note that there has been some debate as to whether their members merit sufficient notability!!!To my way of thinking they do but I would welcome your advice as an adminsitrator.

Regards

(RNaidu (talk) 07:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC))

Replied at User talk:RNaidu. -- Hoary (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Renaming of "List of the 108 Lower Canadian patriots prosecuted in martial court"

There are a few problems with the renaming you have done. First of all, I am opened to renaming. This is meant as constructive criticism. :-)

I can see now that "martial court" is not really English. I thought I was properly translating the French cour martiale, but I was evidently wrong. I also see that the title I had originally given did not provide any indication as to the time period or the major historical event the prosecutions were connected to. Not very bright on my part...

However, that being said, the current title "List of Lower Canadian courts-martial resulting from the 1837 Rebellion" does work for at least two good reasons:

1. The list includes a majority of patriots prosecuted for acts committed in relation to the first and the second attempts at invading Lower Canada from the USA, which both occurred in 1838, not in 1837. Also the trials occurred mostly in 1839, only the first few occurring in December of 1838.

2. The list is one of persons, yet the title speaks of courts-martial (in the sense not of the courts themselves I presume, but the trials being heard). There were not 108 trials as some cases involved more than one person.

I propose "List of the 108 Lower Canadians prosecuted before the general court-martial of Montreal in 1838-1839". I am here referring mainly to the title of one of the main sources for the list, which is Report of the State Trials, Before a General Court Martial Held at Montreal in 1838-9: Exhibiting a Complete History of the Late Rebellion in Lower Canada. --Mathieugp (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Recreated deleted page

Hi. I noticed you had speedy deleted the page of Bill Keene. I was rather surprised there was no article on him as he's a notable broadcaster so I re-created it. Feel free to have a look. --Oakshade (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Joan Marie Whelan

Tagged and bagged. DreamGuy (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Database report, as requested

See here. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you review this for me

I would appreciate it if you could give this a read through and see what you think. Thanks, TGH1970 (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey...

why the hell are you deleting stuff that you could not possibly know about because you're a stupid geek with nothing else to do. Lars Johan Andreas Adler is a very popular amateur golfer and is verifiable by thousands of people. why don't u crawl into the little hole u call a room, and do something which is actually useful to life. and stop touching yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheeba-hyunsoo (talk • contribs) 04:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete General Tom Lorenz? I worked hard making that page for my great grandfather. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.230.175 (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ann Dossett

Hi DragonflySixtyseven I see you have just deleted this article see here I asked about getting the creation of this article blocked as it has been deleted 4 times now thanks. BigDunc^Talk 19:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

oops you were doing it as I was posting this. BigDunc^Talk 19:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Please check the contributions

Hello DragonflySixtyseven

Please, check the contributions of the LarryLemy (talk · contribs), which has created several articles false in pt.wiki.

Thanks Adailton (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you removing my Giambigarchy page because of sillyness. It was made for enjoyment and offended no one in anyway. Please put it back on Wikipedia immediately. I don't really know who you think you are but put it back on stat. There was no reason delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bh6thman (talk • contribs) 21:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

Thanks a lot... Thank you very much for that information... i'm very very sorry for making such article and blaming somebody... I'm really sorry...

--Fighter 10 ^(talk) 8:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC +8)

Iji (video game)

Hi there, regarding User:Someone another/Iji (video game), would it be possible to move it back to the mainspace now? I've improved the references and added the reception info, I would do more but I'm semi-active and have still yet to even play this game. I'd just like it out of my userspace so I can return to it at some point in the future to hopefully get it to GA. Someoneanother 19:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

transcluding newpages

While looking at bugzilla:14692, I started documenting mw:Help:New_pages, and have a transclusion example at User:Jayvdb/NPP7. It might be more server friendly by using YYYYMMDD instead of a fully qualified timestamp. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

NPP bot is down and I can get to the server. It could be a few days before I get this rectified. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comment at the RfC

Just FYI, I did reply there, but I spent a long time on NPP before I got +sysop, and am well aware of the backlogs. I feel your assertion was therefore a little unfair. The way to avoid backlogs for FlaggedRevs is simple:don't flag all the articles, just the "vulnerable" ones like BLP, maybe FA and those we'd normally semi-protect. Might even take some load off RC patrol, but I'm not certain on that point. The real issue is that we won't know the extent of the backlogs without actually trying the extension. The trial is therefore good fodder for both sides of the argument. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Pierre-Célestin Rwigema

I'm confused now: The article Pierre-Célestin Rwigema had been recreated after its wrong speedy deletion about two weeks ago, but I don't see anything about the second version. Did you overwrite the existing version? (I don't know how to get it back and compare it; it may have been better than the previous version already.) As it is now, my comment on the talk page does not match the existing article. — Sebastian 06:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed your reply on my talk page, and I now think the best place to discuss this is the article talk page. I'll reply there. — Sebastian 07:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Patrol of article

Noted that you are registered to patrol the article on Jacob Truedson Demitz. I have done what I could to improve references and fulfill requirements today and hope we are moving in the right direction now. You may comment on discussion there if you wish. I apologize for any format errors. /Thurgood Rosewood, from a City of Stockholm IP 217.21.225.53 (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Why block?

Hi, Dragon. Why have you blocked Essjaywalker? I don't get it. Since when are harmless socks verboten, and where is its supposed disruption? The account's comments on the Village Pump are no more disruptive than my own, and I don't seem to be finding myself blocked. If you're not around I'm going to unblock Essjaywalker in a while. Bishonen | talk 15:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC).

Re: Leonard Sax

In response to the message you left on my talk page: I think you misinterpreted what I am trying to do with the Leonard Sax edit. Sexual dimorphism is simply term that means biological gender differences. Leonard Sax's first and most famous book is titled "Why Gender Matters." As the title suggests, in it he summarizes the primarily biological reasons why boys and girls learn differently. He does not use the term himself, but it seems like a straightforward application of concept to his writing. However, that wording is not actually significant. I do not know what complaint you are responding to, but if you look at the history of the Leonard Sax page, you will see that there has actually been three editors trying to include well-sourced material that is critical of Leonard Sax. I am only the latest one. Fritzvonturin, who is likely Leonard Sax himself or his employee, is trying to obfuscate the argument by switching it to insignificant topics, such as whether the term "sexual dimorphism" is used. However, the point of the argument is always whether the page should acknowledge that Leonard Sax is a controversial figure that has received criticism from academics and the mainstream press. I will happily not put in any words about "sexual dimorphism" into the page again, because those words are not important. But if you would like to help with the page, the thing to do would be to make sure that the well-cited criticism stays and is not removed or diluted by Leonard Sax. DarwinPeacock (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Arizona Sky (2008 film)

By whose authority do you take upon yourself to whole sale delete my work from Wikipedia? Did you subject the matter to a talk page. I think that you abuse whatever dictatorial authority you have, sir. I will reenter the material and demand an RfC of you if you delete it wholesale again! How would you like it if some arbitrary, dictatorial so and so like yourself deleted something that you spent hours on? Just because, unfortunately you are an "administrator" does not make you God on earth.--JRiverton (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page:

[edit] A response If someone deleted an article that I had written, I would first read the deletion rationale. This is in fact what I did on the occasions that articles I wrote have been deleted. Sometimes I am forced to concede the point.

In this case, the deletion rationale said "notability not asserted".

Not "not notable"; I'm not judging that. Rather, "not asserted".

You didn't say anything about why the film was notable. It was first shown at a film festival in July, and released on DVD in November? Big deal. Does anyone care?

That's not a rhetorical question. Does anyone care? I see that, when you re-created the article, you added a part about it being "an official selection of the Philadelphia Gay and Lesbian International Film Festival". That's something... I don't think it's really enough, though. Can you provide more information about why this is a notable movie? DS (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rivertonplain"

Direct me to the place where there is such a rationale. There is no such place as far as I am able to find. You simply judged yourself that this article was not notable and you arbitrarily deleted it. I am not a 12 year old boy who simply entered information here. This material is in IMDb, so they, at least, thought that it was important enough for them to list it. It was in an international film festival, etc., so I fail to see how you can arbitrarily do what you do. What is the harm if there is just a little more information in Wikipedia than there is in the other websites? I think that all this noise about "NPOV" is a piece of hypocrisy if information is simply judged by one individual to be "not notable."--JRiverton (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to your post on my talk page [7] you state that there is a deletion log. There was no flagging warning of imminent deletion. You simply deleted it. That is not a fair warning or challenge. The material was in Wikipedia for 2 to 3 weeks, so it is not just some fly by night "vanity pages" that were put in there for a whim. As to IMDb it is just as "user controlled" as this website, fyi. The point is that an editorial board determined whether or not to include the material: not just anything is simply accepted into IMDb as you might think. Wikipedia has chosen to work hand in hand with IMDb in employing its entry numbers into its film info boxes.--JRiverton (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You posted: "I made no judgment about the merit or lack thereof of the movie, only about the article. I did not say the movie was not notable, only that the article did not ASSERT notability. Do you understand the difference?" Yes, I understand the difference; however the manner in which the material was deleted was so precipitate that it did not allow for the POV of anyone but yourself, and was eo ipso not in the spirit of WK:NPOV. Why did you not flag it as a page subject to immediate deletion, and then give the author(s) time to respond? I guess that what you did might be called for stuff that is posted overnight and patently unimportant, but I would hope that a more involved policy would be followed for material that registered contributors (editors) have deemed of value. I understand that you are doing your work as you see it, but I am wondering about the precipitateness of that work.--JRiverton (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but a movie being inside the IMDB is not something to jump up and down about. Just like Wikipedia, the IMDB is a website that wants everyone who has a pulse and types in English to send in information about movies. So that will not work. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Cross-dressing in literature

Hello! You deleted the article Cross-dressing in literature with the motivation WP:OR. I don't recall any original research in the article. Could you please restore it? You may of course remove anything considered original research or nominate it for deletion if you wish, but it would be graceful of you to give me a shot at cleaning it up. Thanks! --Bensin (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Looking at it, I don't se any more original research than for example Cross-dressing in film and television. I will work on it some more though, move it back to the article space in a few weeks and notify you so you can nominate it for deletion if you still want to. You are of course most welcome to improve the article if you want. Thanks again! --Bensin (talk) 04:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete my Episode list for Tasty Time With Zefronk

You did this! You Dumb Nitwit! Don'y Delete any of MY pages again! Got that!?

Marcellusb (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't delete pages without a review. There is no copyright violation for the American Lighthouse Foundation. If you think there is, then let me know, as I am a board member. I will be reporting you for total disregard of wiki standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.76.195 (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for nipping in there to assert notability for Nippy Noya - I got caught up elsewhere and I'd completely forgotten about it. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article about Nikola Bizumic

Mr Dragon, please, explain me, why You delet my article about my relative, Nikola Bizumic ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agkejic (talk • contribs) 22:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

User:STBotI/BADUSER

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bot-assisted incivility. —David Levy 04:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, any edits to the page are wiped out by the next data dump. —David Levy 04:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of the Page on Jemanon

I would like to contest the deletion of the article titled Jemanon. I examined the book (i actually have it) that was its reference, and i did see the stew in there. It also mentioned the small region after which it is named. I'm afraid I don't quite understand why this page was deleted despite its validity as a page as well as its valid references.Boojum1 (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Boojum, this is Dragonfly's answering service...

Unfortunately, while I don't doubt that the book mentions Jemanon, a single mention in one book is not enough to establish notability- especially when I can't find a single other piece of evidence that the region even exists. Unfortunately, there's just no way to verify the data. If you would like, I can restore the material to a subpage of your userpage, and you can work on it as much as you like. Or, you can take this up with the folks at deletion review. If you have further questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page! ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of American Lighthouse Foundation

Still unsure of how you can delete something with "apparent copyright violation" when there isn't one. I'm not even sure you looked to verify such a claim, just exercised your power on a website that is clearly controlled by angry, powerless people. Please start a discussion before you handily delete something next time, you may have proofreader's eye, but you have an itchy trigger finger.Ross Tracy (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of New York State Environmental Facilities Corp

We are a government agency of New Youk State. I assure you there was no "apparent copyright violation" !

Deleted article: Columbia University Chinese Students and Scholars Association

Hello DragonflySixtyseven, could you explain why You delete the page "Columbia University Chinese Students and Scholars Association"? When I see the reason, (apparent copyvio), I don't see any copyright problem it may cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzdyp (talk • contribs) 05:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Lancaster

Hi there! I came across some notable people related to the Treaty of Lancaster while categorizing, and noticed there is no main article for the treaty itself. Looks like you deleted an article of that name back in 2005, but that article looks to have been about some kind of recent treaty between France and German. This treaty looks to be important to the history of Maryland, Virginia and Native American groups. From just a tiny bit of research, I came up with this stub of an article:

The Treaty of Lancaster was a treaty signed between the Six Nations Native American groups, including the Iriquois and the colonies of Virginia and Maryland. The treaty was signed in Lancaster, Pennsylvania on July 4, 1744.

Oak Mounds

Well I did not like that you removed the description of the location, but since you did it someone else went back and did nearly the same thing so I guess I am probably wrong. I created the article and I was just being protective of it. Sorry. Garkeith (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

External links

Text of the treaty

{:stub} Category:Treaties

Could you restore?

Scarykitty (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought you had to restore it, but now I see the new article is created. Never mind!

More chowder protection

The cartoon, not the food. List of Chowder characters needs a semi-prot just like the other two Chowder pages, lots of OR being added. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:PacManCrt260007052004.jpg)

You've uploaded File:PacManCrt260007052004.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Video Podcast "Hop Cast"

Why was the video podcast wiki about the Hop Cast deleted? What makes other video podcasts allowed to stay and not this one?

beerad (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW:Scottown Fireworks Fire is up for deletion too

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottown Fireworks Fire.

This may help too :) {{Findsources3}}:

Find sources for Scottown Fireworks Fire: google news recent, google news old, google books, google scholar, NYT recent, NYT old, a9, msbooks, msacademic ...You can then cite these results in the Article for deletion discussion.

Also, in case you are not aware, there are several tools and helpful editors on Wikipedia who can help you:

1. List the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
2. You can request a mentor to help explain to you all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User.
3. You can vote to merge the article into a larger or better established article on the same topic.

And of course, If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck!

I am wondering why the delete editor didn't notify you? I find that about 20-25% of creators are not contacted, albeit, it is not a requirement. travb (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What's up

Apparently, web gateways to Freenode have been temporarily banned. Email me if you need anything. howcheng {chat} 23:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Request undeletion of "Johnson vs. Buckle"

Hi,

I agree that the Johnson vs. Buckle article has a lot of problems. That said, I think that deletion was unwarranted, the reasons that you mentioned in the Deletion Log notwithstanding. This incident garnered quite a bit of local attention and became a cause celebre at least for the local gay/lesbian community. Thus, I think it warrants an article in Wikipedia.

If you review WP:BLP, there is nothing in the Johnson vs. Buckle that is not supported by a reliable source. The article may have been biased but the bias could have been fixed.

I agree that there does not seem to have been a legal lawsuit titled "Johnson vs. Buckle" but that's not a reason for deletion. The article could be titled Essex Four or New Jersey Four or something along those lines.

If you think the article should be deleted, please undelete it and nominate it using the WP:AFD process.

Thanx.

--Richard (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Johnson vs. Buckle

I understand that there is was a lot wrong with that page, but it never received a speedy deletion tag. I don't think it even qualified for a speedy delete considering it already survived one AFD. -- Irn (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, if it survived an AFD, then it definitely needs to go through the AFD process before being deleted. --Richard (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

GoCrossCampus deletion

I was wondering if you could take another look at GoCrossCampus, which you deleted back in May. With articles in the NYT and www.repubblica.it showing up here, it may pass the notability guideline.

I've been playing it for a couple of months now, and I just started a semi-fan wiki, so I figured it couldn't hurt to ask. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:userfy -- fair enough. That will let me see for sure if I can bring it up to notability standards...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Out of process deletions

Hi Dragonfly, I've just been doing some review of recent deletions and noticed that quite a few of yours do not conform to the criteria for speedy deletion, and are frequently too ambiguous to even qualify for WP:SNOW (I would've voted keep on a number of them myself). Although I realize that you don't believe these articles are useful, I strongly suggest that in the future you nominate more articles for AfD to allow other members of the community to participate in this process - this will also help to ensure that the articles stay deleted, if that is the consensus, since criterion G4 cannot be used if the article hasn't been to AfD. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dcoetzee 05:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Robert C. Davie

As you deprodded this article, I wanted to give you a courtesy notice that I listed it with AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert C. Davie. THF (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

my talk page

whoa, what happened to my user talk page? i just logged on and saw that you had deleted and then restored my user talk. I'm not concerned, just curious--what happened? K. Lásztocska^talk 22:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)