Jump to content

User talk:DragonflySixtyseven/Archive20

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


thank you

Thank you for the corrections about the painter names, I'll be more careful with the next articles! Annaauc (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

User:LRC Techie

I'm looking at this editor, whom you blocked in December as a shared account because they titled their user page "LRC Tech Team". The user has requested unblock, and seems to indicate that they just wanted to sound professional - that the account is theirs and theirs alone, etc. If that's the case, and if they confirm it (which I've asked them to do), would you have any objection if I were to unblock them? They have no deleted (or undeleted) edits that would point to a problem, so - unless there's something I'm missing - I'm not too worried about it. But still wanted to check first. Our discussion is at User talk:LRC Techie, for reference. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Obbop

You reverted a talk page forum style post recently by Obbop (talk · contribs). Out of 241 total edits:

Article 11 4.56%

Talk 190 78.84%

User 24 9.96%

User talk 11 4.56%

Wikipedia 4 1.66%

Category talk 1 0.41% Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

He has a longer history of this than I realised. He signed an IP edit[1] and from the style of the IP, 68.13.191.153 (talk · contribs), I'd say he was telling the truth in signing it. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Ɱ's talk page.

First day of school talk page

Hello DragonflySixtyseven. I'm reaching to you because I was looking for the talk page for First day of school, which was archived/deleted by you; I would like to restore a new one, but since I do not know what was inside the previous I am contacting you to know if I could go forward with the creation of a new one. My interest is to edit the section about Italy, which is imprecise, as well as not referenced (much like the rest of the page). Thanks! --Latriplette (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The previous version was just keyboard-pounding gibberish. Feel free to create a new talk page if you can be productive. DS (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleted Page for TAJ Stansberry

Hello. I'm contacting you on behalf of TAJ Stansberry, you had deleted his wikipedia page and we wanted to know what we need to do to get it back up. TAJ is a reputable Music Video Director and we would really like to get his page back up and running. You can view his work on his website here:http://www.tajstansberry.com/videos.php.html Please let me know what steps need to be completed to get him back up. I work for his representative, you can check out our site here: http://www.larkcreative.tv/directors/ Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alilark (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't recall having taken any action regarding such an article, and in fact the deletion log on TAJ Stansberry shows that it was other people who were involved, not me. Secondly, there's still a userpage at User:TajStansberry. Thirdly, we cannot simply take someone's word for it (based on his own site) that he is Famous And Notable. Show me external third-party sources. DS (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I followed Wikipedia's steps for inquiring about a deleted page and went to the deleted page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taj_Stansberry and your name came up as a person who deleted the page in 2008. Here are some 3rd party references[1]: [2] His video for Jennifer Lopez "On The Floor" is the number 3 most watched video on You Tube.[3] [4] Thanks! Alilark (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, "Taj", not "TAJ". The reason I deleted the one in 2008 was that it had been copy-pasted from another site, in blatant violation of copyright. That version will not be restored. Feel free to write a fresh article about Mr Stansberry - and show your sources. DS (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

OK--would i be able to replace the text and have it be the same page as it was? AKA can i just replace the old article to a new one? 98.154.239.239 (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The old page has been deleted. Don't think about a process of replacing the old content; you need to create a new page. The new page can have the same name as the old one but with your text and with appropriate sources. You will be warned that this page has been previously deleted, but you should be able to create the page as a registered user. I added a new user guide to User talk:Alilark with links that should be helpful to understand Wikipedia's page creation and editing process as well as the requirements for material to be used. I encourage you to look at how some similar pages are structured and written.
SBaker43 (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

ok thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alilark (talk • contribs) 00:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC) would the page get deleted again if the text was the copied from a website associated with Taj i.e. his personal website or production website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alilark (talk • contribs) 00:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It has to be neutral. Imagine that there's someone who 'hates' Taj, but who is compulsively honest and fair. Then imagine that this hater is reading the article. You don't want the hater to be able to find anything to complain about. DS (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks for the help!Alilark (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://hypebeast.com/2012/7/essentials-taj-stansberry
  2. ^ http://edgemagazinesite.com/director-taj-stansberry-noisemakers/
  3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Floor
  4. ^ http://www.youtube.com/charts/videos_views?t=a

E. Ambrose Webster page deletion question

Hello DragonflySixtyseven, I noticed that there had been a page for E. Ambrose Webster and that you had deleted the page a couple of years ago (2010). I was curious on why you deleted this page as I would have liked to make use of it and update as best I could. I have a personal connection to the artist. Thank you, Tim aka trod1952 Trod1952 (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The article on Mr Webster had been plagiarized from another source. It had to be deleted for reasons of copyright. An article on Mr Webster would be perfectly acceptable if it's written from scratch. DS (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Committee invitation

Hi, I would like to invite you to apply to join the IEG Advisory Committee on Meta. --Pine✉ 09:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


user:The Gypsy Queens

Hi There, there were some previous problems on this account. The page has been remade at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gypsy_Queens. Can we please have this old page deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.60.149 (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. DS (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


user:The Gypsy Queens (again)

Thank you for deleting the page. The user account is inactive, so what would be the best way to go about deleting it? Can you do that? The login details for the account are unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.126.119 (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia accounts can't be deleted, only abandoned. But there aren't any fees being charged to anyone, so it doesn't matter. Since the account login details are lost, just walk away and forget it. DS (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Theories on the location of New Albion

I put some talk about this page regarding its name and the suggestion that this information go to the New Albion page. Please review it when you get a chance. Thanks. MikeVdP (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Query

How is this username promotional? User:Afterall805

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC) (TB please)

It was being used to promote a band by that name. DS (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of The Daily Currant for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Daily Currant is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Daily Currant until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Oops

apologies for my mistake re Berton-- you were right and I reverted myself. Rjensen (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Operation SpyHard Deletion

Why was it deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSCampbell (talk • contribs) 21:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey, JSCampbell! The biggest problem with the page is that its subject wasn't notable. You see, notability on Wikipedia is generally determined by references and citations to reliable sources: a subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of each other and the subject to have a Wikipedia article written about them. I'm afraid that Operation SpyHard just doesn't have the coverage in such sources that we need to write an article about them.
No worries, though! These kinds of mistakes happen all the time; nobody will hold it against you! If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask me on my talk page, and I'm sure Dragonfly67 would be willing to answer your questions, as well. There's also the Teahouse, which is a great place for editors to ask any questions they have about editing Wikipedia. Thanks, and happy editing! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Unsure about this

Why? Are you acting under some community instruction to do this or are you just making some kind of revenge strike? What is the purpose of this edit? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Meh, I felt it was appropriate. It's not revenge, it's just that since the user in question was (as I understand it) deliberately misbehaving the whole time, then cleeeeeeeeeeeearly he didn't actually earn the plaudits that were heaped upon him. I don't feel strongly enough about it to argue about it if you wish to restore them. DS (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Just seemed odd to censor some of the user page but not all of it, i.e. all the claims of GAs, FAs, FLs etc that presumably you believe he was behaving in creating the whole time as well.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, I'd disagree with your use of the word "censor". Secondly, I don't feel strongly enough about the issue to completely assess all his braggadocio for validity -- aren't FA's, FLs, etc, pretty strenuously checked by other people? (And in fact, isn't that what led to his downfall? I could be wrong, though, since I don't feel strongly enough about this subject to check the details). If it's important to you that it be restored, restore it. DS (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Firstly I'm not sure why you consider blanking "some" of his user page not to be censoring it. Secondly you claim this all to be "braggadocio", but it's actually other editors appreciating the work he's done. Many editors do this, count their barnstars etc on their user page. Who knows what they're for and whether they should be summarily removed like you did. It's not "important to [me] that it be restored" but it's important that we all understand your selective censorship of his user page. Why not delete the whole thing, rather than subjectively delete barnstars for which, I'm sure, you have no idea why they were presented. Unless, of course, you checked each and every one to discover they were received under fallacious circumstances. I restored it (as you suggested) because I entirely disagree with your approach here. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

you deleted several amusement park articles

Hello. I am Starship9500. I noticed that you deleted several amusement park articles such as Stuntman's Freefall, Looney Tunes Adventures, The Fly (roller coaster), and other numerous amusement park and roller coaster articles. Why did you deleted them? I may recreate Stuntman's Freefall. They were notable and now I cannot find any more information about these articles now. Any websites about Stuntman's Freefall because I might create a draft article on it. The question is: Why did you actually deleted these articles? Who was the name of that sock who created these articles? --Starship9500 (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You may recreate any articles for which you can find verifiable sources showing notability. The articles were deleted because they had been created by a sockpuppet of a banned user; this is standard practice for articles written by sockpuppets of banned users. The precise identity of the sockpuppet is irrelevant, as is the identity of the sockmaster. DS (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
You gotta be kidding me! These articles were created by sockpuppets? Any websites for them. Guess what? I do not know the name of the sockpuppet either. --Starship9500 (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Images FYI

Some images that you renamed, including File:S&W Cafeteria (logo).jpg, File:VisionSwarm demo (made with breve).jpg, and File:Das Tetraeder in Bottrop und Gelsenkirchen (07-01-2005).jpg were tagged as {{ShadowsCommons}} as they previously shadowed files on Commons. Since you renamed them, I went ahead and removed the ShadowsCommons tag since it no longer applies. Have a great day :) -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for removing the recent edit from my userpage. Not sure what I did to upset the user. GoingBatty (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe you deleted a page in error.

My name is Michael Brachman. I have been working in science and technology and recently science fiction for 40 years. Someone who was familiar with my work asked me why, with all of my accomplishments, I did not have a page in Wikipedia. I told them it wasn't important about me but maybe my books.

So I went ahead and submitted a book called Rome's Revolution. It was reviewed by a professional, very popular science fiction web site and given an excellent review. Some of the ideas in it are novel, maybe revolutionary. It was approved by one of your own editors named Andrew. Your own co-editor OperaJoeGreen left me a lauditory note stating:

So there you are! Nice article, Michael. OperaJoeGreen (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That is one of YOUR people.

In the section on using black holes, one of your editors told me my book was better and outselling a number of the books listed above mine and even took the time to recraft the single paragraph into something more powerful and informative.

Enough about the book. When the construction about the article about me was being formed, the person writing it asked me why my name was the lead on so few articles. Especially on the ones announcing to the world that I had discovered the novel approach to the gerbil cochlear nucleus, the efferent-mediated circadian rhythms in horseshoe crabs and that the dynamic response of single auditory nerve fibers had a 120-db range as compared to static stimuli. These were ground-breaking, paradigm-shifting discoveries, cited, in total nearly 470 times to date. Every citing was documented by independent, verifiable sources. How much more notable do you want? The Limulus discovery resulted in several multi-million dollar grants and the dynamic response of single nerve fibers was also responsible for millions of dollars worth of grants.

How does one prove I was responsible for these governments and not others? I asked my thesis advisor, Dr. Robert Smith. This is what he wrote: >>As far as the papers you are author on, that is considered “proof” of your contribution and certainly doesn’t mean you were an assistant. Primary authorship is a funny thing but they have no right to conclude you didn’t participate in the discovery — being an author is “proof” that you did participate, and in our case you went off to other adventures but the papers we co authored all came from your phd work and I can attest to that if there is someone I can contact. The policy here became whomever wrote the paper could claim first authorship, not whomever played the key role in discovery. There are even journals that are always in alphabetical order. I could tell them we use “reverse” alphabetical order : -). In any case I can personally testify re the stuff we did together and point out (as Director of ISR --- should have some weight -- so lets do it soon since I don’t know how long that fading title in a fading institute will be around) that you shared in the other discoveries.<<

As far as the Limulus discoveries, it is somewhat problematic in that the lead author, Bob Barlow died. This is what Dr. Smith wrote about that: >>Yes, but you were on one of the papers weren’t you. I can “testify” to your significant involvement and point out that Bob is deceased.<<

So I did what I said what I did. This was good and important work. The articles were approved by your own editors. If discovering that circadian rhythms are driven by efferents and that my work was **better** than the famous Dr. Georg von Békésy (a Nobel Prize winner) and providing a surgical approach that produces faster and better neurophysical results because of reduced time under anesthesia isn't important, what it?

I object to your deletion and would like some guidance on the formal appeal process so that it will be reinstated. --Mlbphd (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Bitterly disappointed is not the proper term

Your actions have told me that my life's work has no value. You have told me that my discoveries, my research, my articles, my books, my novels have no value. If it were simply a procedural issue (e.g. abstracting the paragraph citing my analytical work instead the article itself), that can be corrected. But I don't get that from you. The emotions your actions evoke far exceed disappointment. --Mlbphd (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) An article on Wikipedia is not a litmus test for a person's value. Indeed, many people who have articles here sure wish they didn't. Have you affected a single life? Have you changed yourself, and thus changed the world? That is a show of value, not a mention in an encyclopedia (especially one that has such strict rules about conflict of interest and autobiographies) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I did not say "not notable". I said "notability not asserted". The flaw is not in the subject of the article, it is in the article itself. When one writes about oneself, Dr Brachman, one can far too easily fall into the trap of assuming that all one's own credits and merits are implicitly known. This is one of the many reasons that we strongly discourage autobiographical articles. Please, read our guidelines on conflict of interest, and understand how they apply to you. DS (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'm worthless and my book, Rome's Revolution is worthless but can't anyone request an article?

You pull the request for an anonymous person to write about my 4th book, The Ark Lords, from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Arts_and_entertainment/Literature/Books

Why is that not allowed? What is the criteria for merely posting a request? This one stumps me. --Mlbphd (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sundar J.M. Brown

Thanks. One of the IPs is editing from Melon's Bank, and you'll never guess who works there. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

We?

Are you more than one person or do you have multiple personalities? Do you always refer to yourself as we? Kinston eagle (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

"We" = Wikipedia. The editorial "we", or the author's "we" if you prefer. DS (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Restore copy of a deleted page

Hi there. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so please forgive me if I'm doing this the wrong way. I'm interested in working on an article for The Last Roundup (Friendship Is Magic episode), but I note that you previously deleted a version of the article. I was wondering, if the previous content of that article was in any way useful material, would it be possible to restore a copy of it to my userspace? I'm sure anything that was there before would be a good basis for any work I might do on such an article, and as this would be my first article I would like to work on it there before moving to article space. Many thanks. OrganicsLRO 13:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pest but I haven't seen a response. Would you mind taking a look? Or if I'm doing this wrong I'd appreciate a pointer in the right direction. OrganicsLRO 16:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. a) you can't have the old content, but b) you can certainly start a new article. DS (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

File:As requested by Luna-San.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:As requested by Luna-San.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 10:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Map projection

Thank you for solving the problem for good (I hope). It crossed my mind to do exactly the same but I'm not a native speaker... Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm afraid there are still problems on this article. Strebe believes, incorrectly, that a sphere, like the surface of the Earth, is 3d. It is not, it is 2d. The Earth itself is 3d, but that is what refer to as a ball, not a sphere. A sphere is the n-dimensional surface of an n 1-dimensional ball. And a map projection allows one to represent a curved surface (like a sphere) on a flat surface (like a map). dimensionality is not the important issue; projection is. could you take a look and adjudicate, please? thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.186.8.148 (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  • @184.186.8.148: Now I'm convinced that you are not acting in strict good faith and feel that our precious time is being wasted. As I just wrote in the talk page, I won't hesitate to propose more drastic measures if your edit war goes on. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

JenniferSoft

Hi there, just wondering why you deleted Talk:JenniferSoft? I was going to pitch in and try to address some of the article's issues.Cheolsoo (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It was just keyboard-pounding etrygvjhef45hfcty. DS (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Possibly someone trying to enter Hangeul. Cheers.Cheolsoo (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Promotion of physical fitness in Canada -> British women's literature of World War I

Help me figure out what happened to this article please. British women's literature of World War I

Its revision history is an absolute mess.Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 09:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You are out of order

You protected the article on the new pope. A flagrant violation of the spirit of Wikipedia. You should know that preemptive protection like this is not part of policy. 86.29.59.5 (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC) And now even the talk page is blocked! Bloody ridiculous. This is no longer a Wiki! 86.29.59.5 (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected. DS (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Whatever. Enough to stop any unregistered users editing the article and talk page, so where was the vandalism? So much for "you can edit this article right now" - Jimbo. 86.29.59.5 (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Dragon, you know damn well that "protected" includes semi-protection. You knew exactly what IP 86 meant, so being coy does not help your credibility. While I agreed with the protection of the article itself, as I said below, the locking of the talk page was outrageously inappropriate and you should have immediately removed it. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm an IP and I totally disagree with anyone who thinks that article should not have been semi-protected. It was guaranteed not only to have vandalism, but a lot of vandalism had it not been protected. The article's already out-of-control with registered users, so imagine what it would've been like with unregistered users. I'm glad this admin protected it. Why would you wait for vandalism to occur when you already know it's definitely going to happen. That would be equivalent to waiting to close a very unstable bridge until someone gets injured or killed. ;) It was clearly the appropriate decision to protect the article. A no-brainer in my opinion. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis talk page

Hi Dragon. I'm an IP and I totally agree with your semi-protection of the article. Obviously, an article like that needs to be protected for awhile. But that's not why I'm writing. Haha. I want to know why the talk page is protected. I've never seen a talk page protected. And what's so strange is that the article page says at the top that IPs can discuss issues or make edit requests on the talk page. But they can't. From the edit history on the talk page, it looks like this is the edit where the protection was added. But that editor is not an administrator, so how did s/he protect it? I'm so confused. Haha. In any case, can you unprotect the talk page so IPs can make requests or discuss issues as they of course should be allowed to? And if an editor inappropriately protected that page, can you please educate them about it? Thanks! --76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

See here, quote from Wikipedia:Protection "Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view). Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes.". So there we have it. Protection of Pope Francis I is not in line with policy. 86.29.59.5 (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I decline to involve myself further on this issue. Feel free to ask another admin to unprotect the page. DS (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Dragon, I don't know if you are the one who locked that talk page, but it was total nonsense. And it's even more ridiculous that you have ignored this request. Talk pages are never supposed to be protected unless there is a clear, existing problem that warrants it. I have been using Wikipedia for many years and have never seen a talk page protected. I made Jimbo Wales aware of this sitauation and, fortunately, an administrator with common sense immediately removed the protection, as you should have done. I honestly can't believe you would respond to this request with "I decline to involve myself further on this issue". Refusing to unlock the talk page of a hugely important article, thus preventing many editors from discussing issues and making edit requests... you should be ashamed of yourself. I'm sorry I defended you on protecting the mainspace because now I'm not sure your reasons for doing it were pure. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I didn't protect the talk page. user:Mike V did. Read the page history. DS (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say you did. And I don't care if you did. It's irrelevant and you know it. My five-year-old sounds more mature than you. The point is that you were asked to remove it and your response was "I decline to involve myself further on this issue", which was despicable behavior for an administrator. If that's an example of the way you handle issues, then you're a terrible admin. Fortunately, there are many great ones like Ezhiki who clean-up for the nonsense done by admins like you. I suggest in the future that you use common sense to handle important requests like this. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I was asleep. You're right, it's good that there are great admins to fix the things that horrible ones like me do. DS (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Your sarcastic indifference is duly noted. Jimbo has been apprised. What you should have done is removed the damn protection when you were asked. Or at least have the decency to say, "I'm sorry, I should've removed it." 76.189.111.2 (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I was asleep. I don't edit Wikipedia in my sleep. And I wasn't being sarcastic. I regret that the talk page was protected, but I'm not the one who did it, and it wasn't my responsibility to immediately investigate and remedy someone else's actions, especially when I wasn't feeling well and needed a nap. Someone else handled it; it got done. I spend a lot of time working on other things that no one else does. DS (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Were you asleep when you typed "I decline to involve myself further on this issue. Feel free to ask another admin to unprotect the page"? 76.189.111.2 (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I was feeling dizzy, and was asleep shortly thereafter. DS (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
and, specifically, that's why I declined to be involved further. I'm always willing to apologize for my own mistakes, but not for those of others. I didn't protect the talk page, I wasn't feeling well enough to properly understand the situation at the time, so I politely said "I'm not getting involved, ask someone else", then went to take a nap. DS (talk) 03:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, your excuses sound like my young child. ("But I didn't do it!") If you didn't want to get involved, then you shouldn't have typed anything at all. You said you didn't "properly understand the situation". Seriously? I'm not sure what's so hard to understand when someone tells you that the talk page of the new pope was inexplicably protected. The talk page of the article that you protected. Do you know how many talk pages on Wikipedia are protected? 78! That's right... 78 out of millions. Think about that. There's a greater chance of you getting hit by lightning than of a talk page being protected. And who the hell cares who protected the page? You were the admin who was asked to fix the error (because you were the one who protected the mainspace). You really need to stop focusing on who made the mistake and worry about your own actions. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I'm sorry you weren't feeling well. You actually sound like a nice person, but your inaction affected a lot of really pissed-off editors. You had the opportunity to quickly and easily remedy a big problem. Apparently, you didn't know that locking a talk page is big no-no, except in extreme circumstances. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
76.189.111.2, please calm down. No administrator is required to carry out administrative action. They do it when they feel it is appropriate and they are available to help. In this particular instance, your demand for immediate action by an administrator who were not even the one who made the protection in the first place, and your subsequent comments is going too far. Your first port of call, if you disagree with an administrative action is to discuss it up with the admin who made that action. Please don't be surpise if admins feel hesistant reversing the administrative action of another, as in most situation that would require discussion first with the original admin, just like any other editors. KTC (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Gee, one admin defending another admin. What a surprise. Haha. Sorry, but you lose all credibility when you begin a comment by telling someone to "calm down". You lost right there. As far why I didn't contact the admin who added the protection, it's because I couldn't figure out who protected it! If you read my intitial comments, you would know that. But I did know that Dragon protected the article itself, which is precisely why I asked him nicely to unprotect the talk page. And if an admin is hesitant about reversing an obviously highly inappropriate action of another editor, then that admin's competence should be reviewed. Interesting how a couple minutes after I reported the matter to Jimbo, I discovered that the talk page protection had suddenly been removed. You obviously don't know what you're talking about... talk pages do not get protected except in extreme circumstances. Period. Anyone could have looked at that talk page at the time it was protected and immediately realize that there was absolutely zero justification for locking it. I don't even know why I'm responding to you because this is none of your damn business and I'm pretty sure that Dragon doesn't need a bodyguard. If you want to go defend an admin who refused to get involved in an urgent matter that could have been quickly and easily remedied, then take it to Jimbo and make your case. I'd love to see that. I doubt you'll get any sympathy for your position. So take your ridiculous, cliche comments like "No administrator is required to carry out administrative action" somewhere else. If the only actions you take are ones that you are required to, then you should resign your adminship immediately. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not a competition, you lost all credibility when you acted like it is. Regards! -- KTC (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That's all you can come up with? Seriously? Haha, very pathetic. Now aren't you glad you decided to come here and butt in? I suggest you look up the definition of the word de-escalation. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The article Pope Francis is still semi-protected, permanently. It was SP'd almost as soon as it was created, for NO valid reason. Please unprotect it. If it attracts vandalism in the future, then semi-protect it again, but as has been pointed out above, pre-emptive semi-protection is not allowed. 141.6.11.21 (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've posted a summary of this discussion on the article's talkpage, so that other people may contribute. DS (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

DS, I saw your post on the article's talk page and you are a damn liar your claim is totally false. No one said that you protected the talk page! I sure didn't. Show the proof that me or anyone else said you protected the talk page. What does my initital post in this thread say?? I'll refresh your memory: "From the edit history on the talk page, it looks like this is the edit where the protection was added. But that editor is not an administrator, so how did s/he protect it?" So, from the beginning I told you that I thought it was another editor that did it. I simply asked you about the talk page since I knew you were the one who protected the article itself. So get your facts straight. And the amazing part is that I actually defended you vigorously (in this thread and the one above it) about protecting the article itself. All I did here is simply ask you to please unprotect the talk page. So when you say that you've posted a summary of this discussion (this thread), that's bullshit. This discussion, which I started, was about the talk page only. The comment you just put on the article's talk page says, "(some of whom mistakenly believed that I was responsible for semi-protecting this talk page as well)". That is a total lie totally untrue, so you need to strike that comment. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
DS, you wrote on my talk page, "I reject your statement that I lied. I was incorrect; however, when you say that I lied, you imply that I deliberately acted to deceive. I politely request that you amend your statement on my talk page accordingly."[2] Sorry, but that's just nonsense semantics. Did I say that you "deliberately acted to deceive"?? Just because you infer something does not necessarily mean that it was implied. It appears to me that you're being overly dramatic. This is simple... you did not tell the truth,; therefore you lied; whether intentional or not. The text of the discussions were right in front of your eyes and nowhere did anyone ever say that you protected the talk page. Yet you went on one of the hottest articles currently on Wikipedia, with thousands of readers and editors, and carelessly posted a blatantly false claim on the talk page. And, amazingly, you still have yet to strike that false claim, yet have the nerve to ask me to amend my statement, which is totally accurate. Do you see the irony in that? --76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I just saw that instead of striking your false comment on the article's talk page, as you should have done, you simply changed the statement as if the original comment never existed. That's a huge violation of talk page guidelines. I had already responded to your original comment and, in particular, your false statement. So you going back afterwards and removing what you said is highly inappropriate because it changed the entire context of my comments, which directly addressed that false statement. That's why we have striking and similar processes. You need to correct that. In the meantime, I've reverted it. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC) 23:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I see that you have appropriately struck your false comment on the article's talk page. Thank you. Since it will apparently make you feel better, I've struck the references to you lying here and on the article's talk page. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI moved image

When you moved File:BegenaTemamProfile.jpg to File:Temambiru plays the begena.jpg without a redirect, it closed this FFD: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 February 28#File:BegenaTemamProfile.jpg as a non-existant image. In this process, the tag to the FFD nomination was left on the file. The image has since been renominated: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 March 2#File:Temambiru plays the begena.jpg. Please keep an eye out for situations like these as it hurts the WP:FFD process and hampers further discussion until a new nomination is made. Thanks, -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops. I'll keep an eye out next time. DS (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
No worries, you might also want to comment on the open discussion, since you commented previously. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Soares

I have added some justification. Thanks for your interest. Tissueboy (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate use? Please specify

Please specify what exactly was wrong with this user page of mine you deleted: User:Levdr1lostpassword/PC. Thank you. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 23:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, DragonflySixtyseven. You have new messages at Levdr1lostpassword's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, DragonflySixtyseven. You have new messages at Levdr1lostpassword's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Userfy

Just a reminder that you offered to userfy some deleted pages for me. Many thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 03:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

List 'em and I'll make it happen. DS (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Images from 'Genocide Archive Rwanda'

Hi, DragonflySixtyseven,

thanks for your contribution on the Kantano Habimana page. I've come across that image database as well. As a fairly new user, I am unsure of how/if I can use their images. I've read up on Wikipedia's image use policy and it seems I can only use their images if they are in the public domain, or under special circumstances such as those you lined out here. I cannot find any copyright information on the Genocide Memorial's website or Wiki. I wrote them an email a few days ago, but they have not answered.

I'm still confused, would you mind helping me out on a couple of questions I have?

1. If I use similar reasoning as you did and take the image quality down a notch (using the image upload wizard) for "non-free historic portraits", can I use them? Specifically, I'm thinking about the following, who are all currently serving long jail sentences:

2. Similarly, can I use this image of Valérie Bemeriki? There are absolutely no other images of her online, it's small, low-quality, the original source of the image is unclear (Google image search for "Bemeriki") and she is serving a life sentence.

3. Do you know if images (screenshots) from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda's ICTRTPIR YouTube channel are free to be used on Wikipedia when properly credited?

Thanks again, and sorry for being clueless. PZAJ (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) On point 1 and 2, above, it is likely that someone who is in that situation could not have a new, Free picture taken and this makes for a reasonable fair use case that "no free equivalent" can be found; but that remains to all the other caveats for non-free use of an image – in particular, contextual significance still needs to be demonstrated. — Coren (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Coren, thanks for the quick answer. Can you please direct me towards an acceptable template for the description of contextual significance for portraits such as the one DS uploaded? I'd then adjust this to the mentioned images, upload and add them to the respective pages. Thanks again! PZAJ (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
You want to place and fill a {{Non-free use rationale biog}} template on the image page with the 'Replaceability' field explaining why it is not possible to get a new Free image of the subject. Mind you, consensus is generally that fair use portraits are only appropriate on biographies of the subject themselves and rarely on articles that only discuss the subject of the photograph indirectly or passingly. — Coren (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again for the quick answers. How do I go about uploading an image exactly? At what point does the template you mentioned come into play? If I use the Image Upload Wizard (and this is the only way to upload an image?), I need to fill out most of the information mentioned in the template you mentioned anyway. PZAJ (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Could I suggest that you ask this directly on Coren's page, instead of here? Thanks. DS (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Christianity922's pages

Hi DragonflySixtyseven. This is a courtesy note that I have quoted you at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Christianity922's pages. Cunard (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Fred Sande

A tag has been placed on Fred Sande, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. - Camyoung54 talk 15:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Vladan Đogatović

FYI: I declined a CSD attempt on this page, based on a log action from you to restore it after a prior deletion. — xaosflux Talk 21:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this, why did you restore it? Uberaccount (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I hate to say this, but it's been almost a year, and I no longer remember. However, I've looked at it, and it seems a perfectly reasonable article; if you disagree, feel free to take it to AfD. DS (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Food 2.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Food 2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Toddst1

I noticed this while looking at a couple things: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DragonflySixtyseven&action=historysubmit&diff=547671824&oldid=547670358

Dude seriously needs to grow up and take a chill pill.

UPDATE: Now found this too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FaheyUSMC

Apparently that's the guy this tard is running around accusing people of being and it's all from 2011? Seriously in need of a chill pill there.

On citing Wikipedia from other languages

The policy on this seems somewhat difficult to understand. I do not think it is right to directly cite references for sources that one has not seen. One could make an argument for citing, source so and so as cited in the Wikipedia article, but this sounds some what wordy for the same point. The articles you changed cited the Wikipedia article mainly if not only for the date of death. The problem with your justification, is that to quote homer or the bible, we would have to quote every intermediary through which we derived the original document. I do not like to cite sources that I have not been able to check; however, I can check a Wikipedia page. So can someone else, and they in turn can try to check the source therein, if they have access to it.

Bottom line, if I can't do this, the articles are going to be full of holes. I am no planning to go through my articles to revise this. Your are welcome to do so and also check the primary sources, if you can find them with ease. While quoting a second hand source is not ideal, I am quoting a source that is verifiable for me. Rococo1700 (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Singerman

A recent page I edited has been deleted. I believe the person is highly notable within his field and industry and would benefit from a wiki page. I cannot re-create a wiki page without first contacting the person, you, who deleted the page. Before I re-write the page, I want to understand why you deleted it in the first place. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LatSpread (talk • contribs) 19:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you (Willie Anku)

For making me get off my butt and for moving the article from User Space for me. I've noticed that African professors and music theorists have had a hard time at AfD so I wanted to make sure that the case for WP:PROF and notability was pretty airtight first. If you think it's good to go then that's a nice vote of confidence. Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

re: Classic skin and CSS

Add this to your vector.css (assuming you're using Vector, that is; the code should work for other skins too, but I haven't tested it): 

body:not(.ns0) #content { background: #ffffec; }
h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 { font-weight: bold; }

This is assuming you're using something more recent than IE6 :)

If you want to set different backgrounds for different namespaces, you can use body.nsN #content { background: #ffffec; }, where #ffffec is your color, where N is appropriate namespace number (see Wikipedia:Namespace for a list). Similarly, if you want to only bold some headers, you can modify the list of hNs, removing ones you don't want to modify (personally I think that bolded h1 – toplevel heading – looks a little weird). Matma Rex talk 20:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

(responding to your message on WP:VPT): regarding layout changes and JS: depending on what you want exactly, this can be accomplished fairly easily. one example is moving the "right navigation" and "left navigation" content to the toolbox(these are the tabs at the top of the article, such as "Edit", "Talk", "History" etc.): this can be achieved by including the folloing line in your common.js page:
$('#left-navigation li, #right-navigation li').prependTo('#p-tb ul');
if you do that, you will want to remove the cute little star used for watch and unwatch, and replace it with text. this can be done by including this line:
$('#ca-unwatch, #ca-watch').removeClass('icon');
there might be some other changes you want to make. for instance, some of the text looks different. if you want to change the "Edit" to "Edit this page", the way to do it is so
$('#ca-edit a').text('Edit this page');
in general, each of these links/buttons has a name, such as "ca-edit", "ca-history", "ca-addsection" and such. if yo uwant to change the text on any of them, you'll have to find its name forst. this is very easy if you use Chrome: right click on the item you want to change, and choose "inspect element". in the screen that will open, look for the closest "li" element above the selected line - its id is the name you are looking for.
to change the text, you add something like $('#THE_NAME_YOU FOUND a').text('THE_TEXT_YOU_WANT');. pay attention to the # sign and to quotes, also note that the id is case-sensitive - you have to use the id you found exactly.
feel free to contact me on my talkpage if you find the above useful, and want instructions how to make more changes. if you get something useful that gets you close enough to the "Classic" look, you migh want to post the whole shebang on the meta page, so others can use it too.
peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Forest planet

That was you who deleted forest planet article over five years ago after I created it as then-my username BlueEarth. Since you are admin, can you view last revision and copypaste it to my user talk page by creating section header 'Forest planet' so I can look at it and likely use it for my article on Wikia? PlanetStar 01:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Customizations

For User:DragonflySixtyseven/vector.css: 

/* All the text on the page should have serifs, not just the body content */
* { font-family: "Times new roman"; }

/* get rid of the little 'person' icon next to the userpage link */
#pt-userpage { background-image: none; }

/* for non-article pages, the placid yellow tone should be the
background on the entire page, not just the body content */
/* note: this currently causes non-active tabs to look a little funny -
this is much easier to fix on the MediaWiki side and i'll submit a
patch to do that shortly */
body:not(.ns0) #content,
body:not(.ns0),
body:not(.ns0) #mw-page-base,
body:not(.ns0) div.vectorTabs li.selected { background: #ffffec; }

/* the thin line that separates sections in the toolbar from each other
is too blue. It should be greyblack. */
#mw-panel.collapsible-nav .portal { 
	background: none; /* remove the default one */
	border-bottom: 1px solid grey; /* add out own - adjust the color to your liking */
}

/* there should not be a separator line between (page title) and "from
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" */
#firstHeading { border-bottom: 0; }

For User:DragonflySixtyseven/vector.js: 

$(document).ready(function() {
	/* get rid of the "star" interface for the watchlist */
	$('#ca-watch').removeClass('icon');

	/* categories should be listed at the top, not the bottom */
	$('#catlinks').insertBefore('#firstHeading').css('font-size', '0.8em');

	/* the language links should be up top */
	var $plang = $('#p-lang').css('font-size', '0.8em');
 
	$('#catlinks').after($plang);
	$plang.attr('class', 'catlinks');
 
	var $h5 = $plang.find('h3, h5');
	$plang.find('div').prepend( $('<span>').append( $h5.text()   ':' ) );
	$plang.find('ul').prepend( $plang.find('li') );
	$h5.remove();
	
	/* "View history', "Move", "protect', and "delete" should be off on
	the left side of the page, not concealed in a little dropdown box
	up top. */
	// kill redundant link
	$('#p-namespaces li.selected').remove();
	
	// merge all portlets
	$('#p-cactions li').appendTo('#p-namespaces ul').wrapInner('<span>');
	$('#p-views li').appendTo('#p-namespaces ul');
	
	// cleanup
	$('#p-namespaces .collapsible').removeClass('collapsible');
	$('#p-cactions, #p-views').remove();
	
	// pull two links from the toolbox
	$('#t-recentchangeslinked, #t-whatlinkshere')
		.appendTo('#p-namespaces ul').wrapInner('<span>');
	
	/* The order should be Edit, Watch, Move, Delete, Protect, Discuss,
	History, What Links Here, related changes.*/
	order = [
		"ca-view", "ca-edit", "ca-watch", "ca-unwatch", "ca-move",
		"ca-delete", "ca-protect", "ca-talk", "ca-history",
		"t-whatlinkshere", "t-recentchangeslinked"
	];
	
	for(var i=0; i<order.length; i  ) {
		$( '#' order[i] ).appendTo('#p-namespaces ul');
	}
});

Also:

  • "the relative font sizes for the various elements should be those used by Classic"
    • I'll need more instructions here :)
  • "there should be a separator line above the page title"
    • There is already the blue line separating the tabs from it, as well as the categories box (moved there by one of the customizations). I don't really understand how is this supposed to look.

It would be great if you linked this on the talk of the Meta page and wherever else people wanted a classic-like look, as I'm sure you followed these discussions more closely than I did. :) Matma Rex talk 21:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

ALF Products Inc.

Why did you move "ALF Products Inc." to "ALF Products"? The most popular meaning for "ALF" is the television character ALF (TV series), for which there are many products sold. These are referred to, obviously, as "ALF products"... which is now what the page for "ALF Products Inc." is named. What I'm not clear on is what the advantage is to renaming the page in such a way as to create confusion.

Note: after I created the page "ALF Products Inc." I discovered that often a URL that ends with a period is improperly handled by websites and mail programs, causing the URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALF_Products_Inc. to be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALF_Products_Inc instead. (Observe that even Wikipedia messes up that first URL!) This was preventing the correct page from coming up, so I added a redirect from "ALF Products Inc" to "ALF Products Inc." to solve that problem. Differtus (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Because we don't normally use "Inc.", "Co.", "Ltd.", etc, in article names. DS (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems to be somewhat common: Acer Inc., Apple Inc., Belden Inc., Bourns, Inc., Calix Inc., Dialogic Inc., Expedia, Inc., Fossil, Inc., Home Automation, Inc., Radcom Ltd, Shuttle Inc., Summit Data Communications, Inc., and so forth. What is the criteria for using "Inc." or not? I think it might be appropriate to include "Inc." in this case, since "ALF products" means something entirely different, in ordinary usage. Differtus (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Replied

On my Meta talk page and on Matma Rex's talkpage here. πr2 (t • c) 19:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Replied on m:Tech. πr2 (t • c) 01:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I'll catch up sometime after the weekend, I was extremely busy and with only a spotty Internet connection since Wednesday. Matma Rex talk 22:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Replied on m:Tech. πr2 (t • c) 17:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Article about MaheshaBSD

Hi i would like to ask about article MaheshaBSD. I would like to create one. I am using wikipedia for the first-time. Thank you for your answer.

ALF Products (reply)

(See my more detailed reply above in ALF Products Inc. section.) How about you move the page "ALF Products" back to "ALF Products Inc." and I'll add a section on its Talk page discussing why it makes sense to include the "Inc." (mainly to avoid confusion with "ALF products" which are products related to the TV character "ALF"). Sound good? Differtus (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, the TV show doesn't have enough of a cultural impact at this point for people to potentially confuse the two. DS (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Already autopatrolled

Hello Dragon. What what? Admins have autopatrolled automatically. It's part of the tool package. Bishonen | talk 15:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC).

Blah

Get someone else to test your talk page. I'm not doing it. ;-) Nick (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Kitties make everything better :D

gwickwiretalkediting 01:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

My contributions

Hi - thanks for your tip about the Classic skin fix for Vector. Just one query - I can't find a link to my contributions with the way it's configured (when I'm not on my user page) - am I missing something? An optimist on the run!   13:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Poecilotheria rajaei

Could you either undelete the Poecilotheria rajaei page or put a copy of it into my sandbox? When I worked with it a week or so ago, there were no copyright issues that I saw and it met all the guidelines for a newly described species article.--Kevmin § 16:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC) @Kevmin:

Not a Wikipedia controversy?

Nevermind. An intelligent editor already did the correct thing. - 2001:558:1400:10:8587:A528:1836:45F8 (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sauron

Hi. I'm looking for clarification on some sourced information you added to Sauron (comics) a few years back. If you can help out, please go to the topic I just started at Talk: Sauron (comics). Thanks for your time.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

In followup, thanks for looking into this issue and digging up that helpful reference! That really helped clear things up.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Miguel Villarreal

Hi, DragonflySixtyseven. I have a concern from your recent title move. It is found on the article's talk page. Thank you. ComputerJA (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saurabh_Gadgil

Let me know why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saurabh_Gadgil Biographical article was deleted by you ?

Because it was entirely "SAURABH GADGIL IS WONDERFUL, SAURABH GADGIL IS INCREDIBLE, SAURABH GADGIL IS SO SKILLED AND TALENTED AND SHOULD BE ADMIRED ALL THE TIME BY EVERYONE". It's possible that a valid article can be written about Saurabh Gadgil. This was not a valid article in any way whatsoever. Nothing could be salvaged from it. DS (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

phildel

Hi, DragonflySixtyseven. Thank you for the information about copyright images. How do I find an image for the album that is a 'fair-use' image. That image has been used on various blogs and websites that I have been using to create the 2 articles about Phildel and her album. DavidAnstiss (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Bethany Huang

Hi DS. There's a request at WP:REFUND for undeletion of this page, but as well as deleting it, you also appear to have revdeleted every revision of the page - which seems to make it impossible to restore (since it's deleted, I can't access the individual edits to view or unrevdel them, and I can't restore the page if the top edit (which is all of them) is revdel'd). I was wondering if you could shed any light on the issue - from what little I can see, there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason for Revdel to have been invoked, but there may have been copyright or other issues that I'm unaware of. Any suggestions on how best to proceed would be appreciated. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 07:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

My photos

what does it mean that you positively reviewed it...

I have no idea what you're talking about? What page? DS (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi-lo!

I saw you reviewed my sandbox proposal of a WikiGov reform. Obviously it's nowhere near completion, but I just wanted to touch base and ask what you thought. Please leave me a talkback if you reply. Thanks, TheOneSean | Talk to me 18:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

1) BigPimpinBrah (OFFENSIVE USERNAME)

I Also would very much like to see this "USER" change this foolish offensive name it really makes me angry I have been trying to express this to the user him/her self but my post keep getting deleted no mater how civil I make them.--122.109.127.168 (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC) gjyi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.241.118 (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Cypenamine correction TALK

Quote "I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's meaningless, although I'll grant that the phrasing is far from optimal. Perhaps it's intended to be an optical racemate of two trans diastereomers?"

Look (DS)-DragonflySixtyseven, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about and the 'big words' you, so inadequately, use do not help, they just dig your hole of obvious intellectual deficiency (in this subject) deeper. Stick to commenting on subjects you have some actual understanding of!. Ever heard the saying "A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing"!--122.111.241.118 (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

BioTrust Nutrition

Hello, DragonflySixtyseven! I see that you recently visited a page on which I'm working titled BioTrust Nutrition. I was wondering if you have any feedback or suggestions for said article. Thank you very much in advance for your time and input. Much appreciated! HealthFitNut (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Review

may I kindly ask why you reviewed a page on my Userspace??? (User:My1/Wikilinks)

My1 17:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed (User:FrigidNinja/Adoption/Test Five). FrigidNinja 15:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Because the new Echo system doesn't properly distinguish between "reviewed" and patrolled. I look at a page; if it's good, I click 'patrolled' to get it out of the list of 'unpatrolled pages', if it's bad I delete it. I go through userpages to make sure that there's no crap there that needs to be deleted (there's a lot more than you'd like to think). Any more questions? DS (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Deleted user back from the grave

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Caverton has you deleting a page and blocking a promotional account.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Caverton1 is, I infer, essentially the same content back on a new sock. It's also COPYVIO.

I'm not sure which combination of CSD etc is appropriate, and hope you might know. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

New message

Per request :) Thehelpfulone 16:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Recreation of Angelo Santabarbara

Back in 2010, you deleted Angelo Santabarbara as a result of an WP:PROD. Fast forward three years and the article's subject has been elected to the New York State Assembly, where his is one of the few WP:REDLINKs to be filled in. Given that the subject of the article now meets WP:POLITICIAN criterion #1, would you restore it? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. DS (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Oddly, the talk page is still statused as deleted—I assume this means WikiMedia software (or the Wikipedia configuration of it) treats the talk page independently of the article with which it is associated. Can you also restore at your convenience? Thanks. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Material (film)

Hello Dragonfly I see that you have reviewed my Material (film) article. To be honest, I wasn't aware that anyone could look at a user's drafts/work in progress. There's a big green tick, which I assume must be something nice, but as a fairly new user I am still in the dark as to what it all means really. I hadn't even put the page up as I wasn't really satisfied with it as it stands and was hoping for a few more references. Any enlightenment more than welcome! Picknick99 (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I patrolled it. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created userpages and confirmed that your draft was not spam, was not an attack page, was not a copyright violation, was not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's userpage without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" and moved on to the next one in the list. There are tens of thousands in the list. I don't have time to explain to everyone what it means when I patrol their page. DS (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You were mentioned in my notifications...

Hi DragonflySixtyseven, I'm Kevjonesin. I just logged in and the following showed up (next to a green check-mark) in my notifications:

"User:Kevjonesin/sandbox was reviewed by DragonflySixtyseven 1 hour ago"

I'm curious as to the sense in which the term "reviewed" is used here? Does it simply indicate you were perusing my sandbox or is something more formal indicated? It's a bit of a brain itch and I'm looking forward to scratching it. :  } --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I got your message "Go read the section before yours. DS (talk) 5:55 pm, Today (UTC−4)" which you left on my talk page. (Am confused why you posted there rather than replying here as the relevant entry is above, but anyway...) I read the above, thanks for clearing that up. Perhaps a suggestion could be passed on to the relevant folks to substitute the more direct term "patrolled" for the ambiguous (and perhaps euphemistic) term "reviewed" in future notices. I'd do so but am unaware of where to direct such. (I'm still settling in.) Thanks for your time and attention, --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thnx fer the review

Hi, DragonflySixtyseven … I noticed that you reviewed an earlier version of my user page, 74.96.37.132 (talk · contribs) … FYI, my IP got bounced a few days ago, so I've got a new user page … as a reward for your due diligence, here's the user page I no longer use. Happy Editing! — 74.96.33.189 (talk · contribs) 22:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops! … changed again! :-) Happy Editing! — 96.231.9.18 (talk · contribs) 21:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Request regarding List of constituencies of Andhra Pradesh Vidhan Sabha

Hi Dragonfly! With regards to the above article, I was surprised to see the name "Vidhan Sabha" being used. This name is not usually used for the Andhra Pradesh one, with the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly the preferred name. You may also refer to APLegislature.org the official site on this subject. Hence, I request you that the page redirection made by you be reversed if my explanation for the same has been satisfactory. You may revert to me for any further clarifications. Cheers, -AltruismT a l k - Contris. 06:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

hi

hi
thanks for reading my page (User:Cleveland24/sandbox) Cleveland24 (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

HU?

I am confused why does my sandbox need to be reviewed? Panpog1 (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Maitre de Chaource

Thanks for your input.

Weglinde (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Request

The red-linked pages at User:AutomaticStrikeout/Adopt were all deleted per my request a while back. Since I will be starting up my adoption program again, I would very much appreciate it if you could restore the pages for me. Thank you, AutomaticStrikeout  ?  16:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You changed the name to "screnenshot"

Please change the name to "screenshot" instead of "screnenshot". [3] I can't move it myself, so I assume only administrators can. You renamed it 15:29, 24 January 2012‎ and spelled screenshot wrong. Dream Focus 17:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). I fixed it. Dream Focus, did you mean you tried to move it? I don't see why you couldn't, since the target page didn't exist. (Only admins can move over an existing page.) Bishonen | talk 17:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC).
(tps) It's different for files and other things in the File: namespace; moving such things requires the filemover right. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for N'anga

An article that you have been involved in editing, N'anga, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Alexandrathom (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I got a message that you had reviewed the article . . .

Hi DragonflySixtyseven, I got a message that you had reviewed the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sue_draheim), and would like to get your feedback on it. Previous objections had been to unsourced material and lack of a neutral tone. I'm still working on it, but I believe I've sourced the unsourced, removed the unsourcable, and have gotten rid of any phrasing which could be considered subjective. Can you tell me if I'm on the right track? Thanks for taking a look at it. Akhooha (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Apologies

I Apologize for being very rude, arrogant and dismissive to you. DragonflySixtySeven. - Sorry -

For This - Quote (DS) "I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's meaningless, although I'll grant that the phrasing is far from optimal. Perhaps it's intended to be an optical racemate of two trans diastereomers?"

Quote (Me) "Look (DS)-DragonflySixtyseven, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about and the 'big words' you, so inadequately, use do not help, they just dig your hole of obvious intellectual deficiency (in this subject) deeper. Stick to commenting on subjects you have some actual understanding of!. Ever heard the saying "A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing"

I'am Very Very Sorry - I was very very Stressed at the time.

Sorry and Best Regards - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.161.131 (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sincerely! - From OneVegetarianTiger-Bull-SeventyFour


aka OneMadScientist--175.38.161.131 (talk) 09:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Forgiven. DS (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou Sincerely 175.38.161.131 (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


Thank you

Thanks for the Notifications Thanks for the good review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryjunior1000 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a little question...

Hi Dragonfly, I just received a notification : you reviewed an article I'd created recently: Voyage to the Edge of the World. What does really mean you "reviewed" it ? Where is this "visible" in Wikipedia ? Regards, Kintaro (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Then, if I'm not wrong, there's no track left behind your "patrolling"... that is? thank you in any case. Kintaro (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

heyho

I just saw that you reviewed my user page...what does that mean? Cheers! StapelChips (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I had a similar question. I just got a notification that said...

User:Numbermaniac/Status was reviewed byDragonflySixtyseven

what does this mean? -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 08:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Zhu Xiaofeng

Dear DragonflySixtyseven,

I was just looking through the academic AFDs and saw this one.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhu Xiaofeng The article is a complete mess and it looks like finding evidence of notability for sourcing will be difficult. But it appears to me he might be a noted scholar covering an interesting range of stuff. I am contacting you because I see you deleted (12:42, 20 May 2011) the talk page as being inappropriate ("talkpages are not forums for general discussion of the subject; they are for discussing the article itself"). I was just wondering if there was anything in there which would indicate whether one might be wasting time trying to save the article. I see the Chinese article survived its Afd but there seems to be not much info about their debate. Just sources indicating some output. Anyway this is really just a request for advice. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC))

Thanks :) (Msrasnw (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC))

User:P64/FSF/Norton "reviewed"

Hi, I don't understand the notification that you reviewed User:P64/FSF/Norton, where there is no talk page or recent revision. For what it's worth, in my experience other editors revise my talk pages only on technical matters such as copy and paste from article space with inappropriate categories or images intact.

Does the notice mean that you have checked for something or left comment somewhere? The page originated as copy and paste from the biography Andre Norton or the associated bibliography but it now comprises more of my notes while visiting library catalogs, awards databases, etc.

--P64 (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

A Country Doctor

Why was it deleted? I saw that the delete log said "nonsense," but I want to know exactly how it was nonsense. Is it possible that you or someone else could recreate this page without any nonsense?--24.225.89.81 (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what page you mean. What was the exact URL, please? DS (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Change body text to serif font via common.css?

Hi Dragonfly- WP gave me a notification that you checked my common.css--I assume some routine patrol triggered by my having created it? That made me wonder if you might be able to help me with something I was trying. Here's a note I left for someone who has helped me before: User_talk:Gwicke#Skin_irritation, in case you might be able to shed some light on my quest. Thanks in advance. Eric talk 16:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking out Erik La Prade

Dragonfly67 I am working on some new pages. One for composer/pianist Jed Distler and another for Fluxus Artist, SWTB Member, Filmmaker Jeffrey Perkins. I see you are interested in popular culture. Me too. I'd like to see those guidelines in process. Any suggestions for topics or pages that need work? GetDaFacts (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Please Help!

Hi there! I just requested my user page to be semi-protected. I then realized that out of all the pages that were requested, only my request was about a user-page. Should I wait for an admin to decline it, or is this the correct place to request user-page protection. You can find the request here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Thanks. --PrabashWhat? 11:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse

Hi DragonflySixtyseven,

At the teahouse, User:Gmkeros said that you reviewed her talk page, and is wondering why. Just thought you may want to know!

Matty.007 14:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I replied to your message. Sorry for bothering you! (I had a look through, but could only see one article which may have been referencing your patrol. Perhaps they are in the archives?)

Matty.007 16:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hongdoushan A - Yunnanxane

Hi. I tried to launch these pages but another user was unhappy with them and essentially blocked them. My notification thingy said you reviewed both pages. If you have time, could you explain the significance of the review, and whether you can get these pages back running? Many thanks Jatlas (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the explanation. I'll check back with you when I have some material for those pages.Jatlas (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
hi DragonflySixtyseven. here is an updated version of the potential Yunnanxane page. i would add more information, but unfortunately i'm limited to a few research abstracts. any help would be appreciated. Jatlas (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback

Appreciate your comments on my Art Vincent page. Ljv21 —Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)

Please just click new section next time. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 00:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Article reviewed?

Hi,

Sorry to bother you - I got a notification that 2013 $45-million ATM cyber looting was reviewed by you, but have no idea how the review system works. Is there a link to a place where I can read the review? Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

User talk:PtNkjoshi

Hi. Can you please remove talk page access of this user, as their talkpage is being used for spam. Also, I approve of the block reason :D Mdann52 (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Bass.jpg listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:Bass.jpg. Since you had some involvement with the File:Bass.jpg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DragonflySixtyseven/Archive20&oldid=1252156682"