User talk:Tstormcandy

Welcome!

Hello, Tstormcandy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! ➜Redvers^{talk  ❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 07:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

→ !!! For travelers coming with concerns about edits:

Deleting and reverting things can be important and the process is what keeps Wikipedia from collapsing in on itself within a matter of days. It's also not a lot of fun. It's even less fun if someone you created was reverted or marked for deletion, and if all of the above apply you're probably very annoyed by now since you're here to ask me about something I did. To date, there's only been one instance where someone who actuality stepped up, talked in a civil manner and improved an article ended up with it deleted it in the end, and that was due to an unrelated ban or other unpleasantries I had nothing to do with. If this was your first article, you might want to take at least 10min and read WP:MFA, which is Wikipedia's guide to first articles for new users! That alone will probably help you with a lot of common problems. If that doesn't quite cut it, be sure to read any other comments on your talk page or on the article discussion page so you know what's going on; if you feel you need immediate help there's a link ← over there on the left labeled Help, or just go ahead and leave me a message below by selecting "New..." from the top of the page and I'll look into the matter as soon as I can. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

→ !!! For all others:

More than likely, you know how leaving talk page messages works, so go ahead and do what you need to. Thanks! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Greeting to Would-Be Message Deliverers

Hello! I will attempt to reply to any messages left as soon as I get a chance to. Feel free to post regarding any objections I may have caused with content, confusions left in WP:AFD discussions, or disagreements in clean-up edits; I will be more than happy to look into the matter further and address any mistakes I may have made. Best wishes! Datheisen (talk)

Evo Street Racers √ Resolved, 22 Oct 2009

Summary: Clarification was offered per my request for more independent sources for said article to make sure it wouldn't be subject to PROD or AfD tag a second time. Editor kindly offered more information and had further questions... everything addressed to the correct persons and all is well with an article that was saved from deletion per discussion consensus. A helpme tag came up by mistake and a very diligent contributor hopped straight on to what was essentially a Wikipedia wrong number. If you really, really, really want to see the text of this for some reason or want to know who was involved, it's be in the article history. Datheisen (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Page has been updated with the requested third party sources and the language has been cleaned up. Please review and advise. Thanks for helping me learn the Wiki way! ELandry1979 (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Afghan Mellat

Thank you for your efforts in the Mohammad Daud Miraki article. Personally, I would either support a deletion of the article (the guy is not really important) or support direct quotes from his book, leaving all interpretation to the reader. Anyway, I would like to ask you if you also have a few minutes to check the article Afghan Mellat. Currently, the article is protected because of recent editwar and POV-pushing. It's about an ultra-nationalist party which claims to be "social-democratic". Yet, it is neither recognized by the Socialist International (I have provided a link to the SI's official website), nor is it accepted as a member. It's leader, Ghulam Mohammad Farhad, was a Pashtun nationalist politician, inspired by Nazi policies of Hitler's Germany. Sources have been provided for this, including a publication by the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. The party has been criticized as "extremist", "ultra-/super-nationalist", "in the far right", "racist" and "fascist" by various authors and political commentators. User:Ketabtoon has removed these sources and changed the wording of the article, trying to give the party a more acceptable image for the reader. I am criticizing his edits as WP:POV, WP:OR (he cites unrelated and unreliable websites and draws his own conclusions), and partially propaganda for the party and even for the Taliban who are an ideological off-spring of that party. Thank you. Tajik (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank for the message.

I deliberately chose this review off the ANI list because thought there would be absolutely no way I would have any pre-knowledge or bias with article content... and I was 100% correct! Since the article was only 2 days old, to avoid endless edit warring and flying review tags I figured we could just pretend like we were starting over. Since one of the contributors has recently been unblocked with a 1RR rule, I wanted to weight the possibility on conflict starting from either end being equal, and that one side could use 3RR over 1 could be in natural advantage in the extended direction of the article if it did not have continuous monitoring. In other words, I'm hoping to create a fair playing field to start from.

It has been difficult already. I invited both major contributors to comment, and they have. I'm actually just finishing a response to both...... here[1]. ...Ha, seems you beat me to commenting. I'll respond to your question here-- My general thoughts are to wait a day or two yet to give Inuit18 a chance to directly cite his quotations from the book he is using and see if anyone else comes in from the ANI with opinions or more information. I already have a few concerns on both ends, but to stick with fairness I go through every citation and check where it leads me. Most certainly I can review your suggested article as well in the process. If only a few quotations from a single book can be posted on one side it will be hard to sense WP:WEIGHT on the small amount of information. I have no doubt that once resources are checked properly and the article edited to reflect data available from reliable sources that the future of the article will be clear-- mostly than likely an AfD. Even then, this process will be worthwhile since the AfD would be a lot easier for others discuss with those pesky quality tags at the top hopefully gone. One way or another the future of the article will be settled and civility can be kept. Datheisen (talk) 11:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

My First Vandal!

A joyous occasion for me today... my very own vandal stopped by this morning with quite obscene and offensive harassment on my user page. Incredibly, it was caught and reverted by an admin in less than one minute because of those fancypants vandal monitoring tools they have and I can only dream about. Generally speaking, this vandal and many other editors got smacked with some abuse after issues here[2].

Still, good fun! There's not a single thing anyone could do or say to me here that could actually offend me, and I have trust in the administrative process that any such attempts to bully me will be dealt with accordingly. Insults and profanity isn't exactly something new to my life that I've never run into anywhere before, so really, you're not going to accomplish anything. Datheisen (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Paz Lenchantin article

The edits I made on this article have been in the interest of removing the vandalism that has been present for sometime. As it is, the page that you are reverting back to contains numerous promotional inserts and references by bands/people that Paz Lenchantin did not actually work with and insubstantial appearences referenced as another means of flagrant self promotion. If you would carefully read the edits at hand, this should be quite clear to you. --Leftbrain111 (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a minute to leave me a message about this-- Wikipedia would be a much less complicated place if editors would always take this extra step. My major concern with this all... by the general practices of Wikipedia article writing and editing, even if every thing said about yourself is true then I still cannot allow you to edit to page in that manner. The article stood the same way for a very long time with only minor changes and no discussion of revisions, so anything more than cosmetic edits could be viewed as vandalism without it being debated on the talk page. Blanking large sections and rewriting what is left is going to attract attention no matter where or when you do it, and is only considered appropriate in the most extreme of circumstances. I made very certain in my edit summaries that I did not call your edits vandalism because of the unusual process of it all.

I would encourage you to read WP:PAGEBLANKING as my reason as to why I cannot allow substantial edits to this page that result in changed content and especially content without proper citations and sources given. Looking at that policy page, check the example at the very bottom. It says that editors should be very careful with dealing with WP:BLP articles, as Wikipedia is very specific about not allowing unverified claims to remain in those types of articles. Even if you are the person in the article, any blanking of information (without appropriately cited content lets in its place that was hopefully agreed to by consensus on the article talk page) is not permitted. Think of it this way; Editors would be reacting the same way and reverting if a very large section of new gossip information or private personal details were posted.

Though I must always assume good faith from editors, I'm afraid that a long-established consensus of well-cited information on a page trumps any large edits, and as one of the general standards of Wikipedia I must first treat all editors equally based on his or her actions. For concerns you might have about what is in the article, please visit WP:RAA for a list of places to request administrator attention so you can pick out specifically what you're hoping to achieve with your edits. I do want to feel concerned about a possible personal conflict, but since the actions you are taking are the same actions a severe vandal would take when trying to destroy an article. I must treat it equally on both sides without exception. No my knowledge, only incredibly rare circumstances like threats of legal action or threats directed at another user can be looked at beyond the starting blank slate.

Unfortunately, I do not think I can help you further and I will have to continue to undo destructive edits to the Paz Lenchantin article until an administrator renders a decision on my request to put it under edit protection. Be them in good faith or no, to me it is still the save reversion process. Cheers~ Datheisen (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

HubSpot article

Noticed you deleted a section on HubSpot products. Wondering under what policy this deletion was made Thanks. Woz2 (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

General opinion? Preferred for editors to refrain from adding links directly to company product or purchase sites per sentiment WP:PROMO. I meant no direct offense to an experienced editor, I had just noticed this section was new compared to the rest of the article design. You're free to revert as you would have more experience than I, but if it's a resource/link that can get a new article tagged and spat out for speedy delete, it wouldn't seem appropriate for something well-maintained. Datheisen (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The section was actually created with the rest of the article, but I updated it recently to reflect recent changes. I feel in this case the "product is truly relevant to [the] article" WP:PROMO so I think I'll revert and see what happens next. Woz2 (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"Don't think so." -- Case deemed closed fully on 28 Oct 2009

Perhaps you can explain how I bit anyone at the hotel van cleef article. I merely stated I didn't know if the German wikipedia has different policies but all I could find was 7 ghits. Where is that insulting or mean? Did I template the creator, or react in any way other then point out it's non ontbale. No. Perhaps you should read what Biting a newbie really is about before spouting off bullshit like that again. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, you got me on some weasel-like defensive language of the article by removing the CSD tag, but by saying and then repeating "I don't know what the notability standards of german Wikipedia" are in your AfD creation, you leave open the possibility that people could think the standards there are lower-- if this is supposedly a slam dunk to delete here, the connotation on a global level is that it's not worth having anywhere. Is that insulting to them? You'd have to ask them. Despite how it was worded, it's obvious from your rigorous defense that no harm was intended, in which case trying to look at it from a non English-centric perspective might help. I'll also stand by the fact that I consider it polite to new contributors on their first article (in this Wikipedia space, at least) to not delete something they've clearly put a lot of effort into. As for biting? The paraphrased quotes at WP:ABF are always worth a laugh after looking at a lot of angry AfDs in the evening. Datheisen (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Impressive, you overlook my bullshit comment. Good for you. Ironically it was a bad day for me didn't mean to take it out on you. I looked into the other page but unfortunately as a English speaker I was unable to nominate but thus far It looked like the same page and if they do have the same qualifications this one squeezed through. I was more addressing the logic fallacy that just because it is on a different wiki grants it auto inclusion. In this case it wasn't but it could've been made the same day. Either way I did htink it was only promoting a small non notable label so while a unremarkable tag would have worked it didn't quite fit the catergories for anyone in paticular so it was pick and choose. Happy editing. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• All's well that ends well. Speedy deletion can sometimes be a confusing process; I know I've made plenty of mistakes (I mean, I guess I know?), and fortunately there is an oversight process--with the admin who deletes or doesn't delete. I don't agree on principle that every new article has time and energy put into it, but in a case like this, an article with substantial content, one can see that effort did go into the translation, for instance. And Hell is right, notability in one Wiki doesn't mean notability in another. The speedy deletion tag in this particular case was incorrect, though, since notability was claimed and there appeared to be claims to back that up, so Datheisen was correct and their counter-patrol paid off. I learned my lesson a while ago: don't be too quick to apply a speedy deletion template, and when it looks like promotion, for instance, but it's not really your area of expertise, don't push that CSD button. Happy editing to both of you, Drmies (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as everyone is in agreement, no concerns about any of it! I've put up for AfD and withdrawn later as well, in that case all I asked was the author to talk to me. He did, problem solved. In cases where the original author hasn't come back to the article yet it can be a little more complicated to get the most natural improvements by people who'd best know how to do it, but this is fantastic. Well there was one dissenter in the AfD that I might leave a message for since they would seem rather out of the loop compared to the other people commenting, which is ironic since I don't know you two other anyone there :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

After my error had been pointed out I moved quickly to fix it by withdrawing the nom. I never ealizzed that the ghits were organized by date. While I still disagree about the biting part I think your assessment ended up being spot on. Good catch!Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe take a look here tell me what you think? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buckhaven town afc Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. Don't get me started on the depth of issues of notability within WP:FOOTY. I've posted over there some with how to attack the issue. In short, their teams are tiered 1 though 15, where 5+ is a "national-level" team and suits notability. Things are really bad, with entries of some teams down to the 12 range from what I've seen. This is roughly the equivalent to you grabbing a few people in your apartment building at random and running off to the nearest schoolyard for a game of technically-competition soccer. Well it's not THAT bad since these are still true leagues with dedicated players, but it's still a bit silly. I'm working on a proposal for a mass PRODding project over there to mop up the mess and make new guidelines for article creation to hope it doesn't happen further. It should be fun. See here[3] for the concept. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Strata (band) article √ Resolved 29 Oct 2009

Cheers for the encouragement - just got it together while I should have been working ;) As I stated in the talk page, it's probably a good idea to threaten deletion so that work gets done on these half-baked band articles :) Jwoodger (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The opinion I've trying to take on page deletions is to kind of... downgrade things a bit to slow down, after some admin advice about CSD use in particular. Instead of patrol for G2s and the most obvious I've gone to counter-patrolling and taking off A7 tags if I think the article has any chance at all, so even assuming someone gets mad their A7 was removed and AfDs it immediately then a good faith article that already has resources and some text beyond base intro and info it means the creator (especially new ones) has a chance to improve it. AfDs like I had been considering here I have a PROD on, and never fear! You had at least 10 days until 3 days had passed if there were no edits, I'd contact your on your talk page without reply, and then started the 7-day AfD discussion. In other words, I'm a total wuss who'd rather help see something live, but I still try to follow through with it all :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't see any reason why Nothnegal was nominated for deletion √ Resolved 1 Nov 2009

UPDATED: New sources have come up including one of yours-- a news story on the front of blabbermouth.net[4]. The site had been down earlier when you first posted back to me, and luckily thankfully someone posted a mirror on the discussion page. I've closed the nomination myself as withdrawn by nominator, and I'm glad the page will end up looking better as a result. I'll entirely understand some frustration you might have, but with everything found the article can probably be expanded a lot. There are several of you that are clearly passionate about the band, so good luck. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• thats great to hear, i will continue expanding the article. thanks.--Mv head (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Pages without ANY valid source √ Laughed at for being 50% true and 50% user baiting on 1 Nov 2009

here are some pages you might want to review: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ahmed_Faseeh and http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Xxoffann it does not prvide any reliable sources and looks more like a self promotion by the artist. i see no reason why this artist should be noted, his band does not include any noted musicians either. the only source provided is his website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntxdr (talk • contribs) 16:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You're free to research those on your own; I don't take "requests" on possible deletion tagging, and even if I did it would be a direct conflict of interest and I could not in good faith carry it out no matter what my true opinion might be. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD LOLS

File:SmileyLollipop.png

Marasmusine has given you a LOLipop! This horrible pun and delicious candy promotes WikiLove and tells the world how low you will stoop for the sake of humor. Spread WikiLove by giving someone else a lollipop, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the unrelenting joy of lollipops by adding {{subst:Lollipop}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Ha, this is why the games portal is great... things can be either as serious or funny as you need them to be, and since most of the content has no physical form? Mmm, yes. It's therapy for edit warring and A7 dueling political articles. Thanks! ♥ Tasty! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Skipsievert and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, The Four Deuces (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, fun... that's the last time I respond to random RfCs! Wait-- wrong lesson. That's the last time I ever put anything I comment to on watch since disputes are likely to go on forever! Wait-- that's not right, either. *Sighs* Well, as long as something changes... it's unfortunate it had to come to this. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Scary Movie 2

Exactly what part of WP:NOR do you not understand? The section involved was flagged for NOR issues for six months without more than a shred of improvement, and was at best a gigantic mass of dubious trivia and personal opinions. It was entirely inappropriate, bordering on a WP:NPA violation, to revert my edit with a vandalism claim. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Blanking half a page is usually frowned upon and there were no tags on the page that immediately justified such a deletion. Have to call it as I see it. You may wish to consider using the article talk page before such substantial revisions. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 23:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bournbrook Kebabs

Very sorry, not sure if this plee for help belongs here or not, please feel free to delete this plee if I have just rudely edited your page but I think this is where it should be! Please could you help me with my article? I do not know what I need to add to stop it from being deleted? I am very confused. Thanks for your help! Polonius-laid (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Darth Vader

I was making the page more encyclopedic; it read halfway like a fanfic. I was distracted during the last four edits, that why it took four edits to get it right. Hey, I screwed up, I admit it. Admit it, though: it reads much less 'fanboy' now; it seriously didn't need all that padding. HalfShadow (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha, no worries! It just looked... silly in edit logs, and really you didn't do anything wrong. There's a reason I manually did it all to make sure AGF got in there, though I think I was a tad blinded too because there had been a string of vandals like that the hour up to that; adding one line and removing it word by word stealthily until all that was left was amiss. Just temporary editor blurry vision? I do also always look at user histories for what might be more subtle changes and was... um, confused?

In total seriousness, I can't think of a single guideline or policy breached and I was basing it on long-drawn apparent consensus and a flagged "ghuh?" internal sensor. Actually, your level of honesty about it tops my frightful level of honesty and apology on most things. At least I'm not alone on such things. You'd actually know far better than I do given the experience gap. I mean, I had to manually chop at it all at once since I don't have rollback (yet!) and with so many consecutive changes I'd rather not 3RR myself to death. Well thank goodness you didn't want to start an edit war over it! :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't care enough to war over it. It was just, like I said, the way it was before looked like someone's fanfic and I cleaned it up. Also, I'm not an admin, though it secretly pleases me when people assume otherwise. It's not strictly necessary to talkback tag me, either; I keep an eye on pages I post messages on. Some people respond on their page and some on the page of the person who posts, so I generally watch both. My 'thing' is generally vandalism-reversion and tidying up pages; either adding info that isn't there or making them read better. I believe the term is wikignoming. HalfShadow (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Aaah yes, I saw the box on your userpage. I haven't decided yet if I fit into gnome or elf more, but I do know new articles aren't really for me and I actually enjoy digging through diffs for hours to make comments on misc things and be ignored instantly. Not healthy, I know. ...Thanks for the original message. Why can't everyone be this precise? *sigh* ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the one thing I've actually done the most to is List of The Backyardigans episodes. With a couple of exceptions, every synopsis from Special Delivery onwards is mine. I seem to have a skill with synopses. I'm not embarrassed to admit it, either. The show is ridiculously superior to most childrens shows, which are basically just lessons disguised as cartoons. That's basically an example of what I do here, but the example of which I'm most proud of. HalfShadow (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Scarborough Athletic √ Odd exercise of self-torment on 4 Nov 2009

In a situation previously unimaginable, something that I actually raised an objection to was resolved without ten pages worth of explanations. Awesome. This outstanding form of depravity spanned about 90min on 4 Nov 2009, re: notability Scarborough Athletic F.C. and division-attached teams and honors. Ok. Time to go to bed. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about 10s/11s. Level 10 clubs are deemed notable, whereas level 11 clubs are generally deemed notable only if they have played in the FA Cup/Vase/Trophy. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

RD

We brushed swords over the kebab shop. Seems to me you are new and keen. I hope you'll soon be a bit better tempered by experience. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the key to "best of" or "top" type questions is to establish if there is a reliable source, whether reflected in a wikipedia article or in an external source. (External sources are fine for the RD, we are not limited to pointing at our own articles.) If there is a reliable source (as there was in this case) then we can answer with reference to that source. If there is not (I recall a recent "who are the best known people in the world" question) then we should answer that as there is no source, we will not enter into speculation. We may still be able to make some helpful obervations.

More or less objective measures do exist for many "best of" or "top" questions; it is not a foregone conclusion that this sort of question necessarily means we're in subjective territory.

It's also worth mentioning that elements of original research or synthesis are acceptable on the RD. We are not providing definitive article-standard answers, we're merely trying to do our best to answer questions. We should try to ground answers in reliable sources, avoid bias, etc, but not feel as restricted on the RD as we do within articles.

On a personal note, though I didn't agree with your take on the kebab issue, I'm happy that your good faith shines through. Keep on keeping on. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That's actually good about the desk, actually. If it's a place I don't have to quite cough up WP:XXXXings constantly out of confusion or try to remember one of 50 level1 warning or welcome templates? That's good. And the kebob bit... well. Ha. I am really sorry about that mess. In that discussion I knew I was just trying to keep the door shoved closed for another minute. It felt very awkward to ask for patience when I was in full agreement with everyone else already. Other authors in general have been really great about improving articles that I've un-A7'd that were borderline, so I hate to see the streak die. A question for you though, since I have no idea where else I'd ask-- how much faster is Huggle on vandalism and assorted editing, anyway? I see some user histories with a few undos per minute, which is better than my getting beat to the punch 95% of the time. I don't care about count in any way, but if a method better than "refresh changes page constantly and hope maybe the page and diff load fast enough" exists, I'd feel a lot more productive. Twinkle is quite nice for the multiple-location edits/posts and for sending user messages added on, but it still doesn't get through the information any better. Erm. Thanks again. I've been lucky to run into a handful of admins and added-rights users who've been quite helpful, so I'll tell you the same think I tell them; You could think of this is me trying to make you work a little easier instead of just a silly favor :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gigs (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Juliancolton/Project

The project now has a more defined idea of what we plan to do. Basically, we're calling for individual proposals on how to improve Wikipedia. Please help by posting your new ideas! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC) (Cross-posting)

Great! I'll keep checking the page, could be fun. ...At least, this is arguably the most logical thing that would have come up after un-breaking for awhile. ...I do agree with your tough call on that evil AfD though, and I've noticed RfA candidates the past week have been squirming around on AfD questions... maybe they did too much homework? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Afrosquad RS review

Thank you for looking at it. I nearly fell out of my chair laughing when I read it! -Stillwaterising (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm yes. I don't even have to feel guilty for enjoying it since it was an actual help board request. A good thing overall; I really needed the laugh after some of the other topics that had been up on ANIs yesterday. Oh, and something I didn't realize until after-- I have no idea how there is no advertising or other browser shenanigans there. If that's actually all a personal website with zero desire to relate to any other other sites at all? Quite rare, especially for that ..."particular target audience"? There'll probably never be another source I hope to see as a "source" to pop up again in the future as much. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sehbueno

It's not even a real band! Read the guy's post to this discussion: it's a fictitious band he's creating his own little mythical universe for, with albums and everything! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well. I'm strange about actually explaining my opinion even is something is 100% obvious. Looks strange, but I like having myself covered if I get opposition or angry talkpage mail. Technically (to me) it didn't matter even at the time the user said it was fake since someone had already said to hold off on deletes... though I suppose it's up to an admin to snowball close and CSD it. My first experience in an early close of an AfD where I withdrew after the page was drastically improved with some snowballing; I was scolded for pulling as nominator close as a speedy keep since someone one user had already suggested delete at the top after many 'keep's after the fixes. *shrugs* I figured I'd never act like anything was really a foregone conclusion. I hope that makes a little sense. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No big deal. (And how did you guess that I'm one of those quirky folks who dislikes "talkbacks"?} --Orange Mike | Talk 01:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I figure that WP:DTTR was written for a reason, including the available userbox. Admins with an account 5 years old usually fit into that. If there had been zero others on your talk page I wouldn't have, but with 1 other there I couldn't tell if it was accepted or you just forgot to clear it in anger. Since I like to know who's around, I check contributions and rights of most people who stop by. I may be new still but I'm not (that) naive :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

To our newest Rollbacker

I have just granted you rollback rights because I believe you to be trustworthy, and because you have a history of reverting vandalism and have given in the past or are trusted in the future to give appropriate warnings. Please have a read over WP:ROLLBACK and remember that rollback is only for use against obvious vandalism. Please use it that way (it can be taken away by any admin at a moment's notice). You may want to consider adding {{Rollback}} and {{User rollback}} to your userpage. Any questions, please drop me a line. Best of luck and thanks for volunteering! upstateNYer 01:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Blueskyboris

Can you explain to User:Blueskyboris on his talk page User talk:Blueskyboris why his edits are being reverted (unsourced)? If he can behave he could be unblocked. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Will do. It's rare for an existing user with edits to go that far on something. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Blah. It would appear that IP 222.236.165.240 is a puppet (or just general carelessness since not used to abuse). If you look at the Joe Lieberman article history you'll see that the IP was the first[5] to add the questionable content yesterday. Wow. All of that was in less than 3 hours? Well, let's see how he takes it. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 11:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Cutting Moments

I found 6 reviews easily. Joe Chill (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw you links. Some aren't directed exactly at the short film and they're not really top-notch sources but I'll admit this is the best case for notability made yet. A lot of the ones you posted were off the imdb list, where I was mostly disappointed that they teased with links to mainstream pop sites that were only information bits. Pretty much I'm set on neutral since after a hundred lesser resources and vague references I hardly remember what I thought when this all started. Seems pretty clear it'll close as keep or no consensus which is fine by me. My WP:CULT unofficial logic is as close to logic I may get on this. Note to self: No more movie AfDs. Thanks for posting those. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:HAMMER

I wanted it to be chronological, since Wii 2 was the first article not related to music to cite my essay. Also, I don't know; what kind of standard would there be for video games? You're talking to someone who's only even played one fifth-generation game. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Aah, hah. Well, if the "idea" for music is to have overwhelming evidence it existed beyond the band saying they're making their Nth album and are in the studio, an "equivalent" in video games would be when there are pictures of it available or previews about "hands-on" playing, meaning someone has touched it and can verify that it exists and has progressed enough to offer an opinion of it. There's been some use if HAMMER in video game deletion discussions, so I figured it might be good to have a few details. I will give credit on how efficient it is for sorting out music discussions. Assuming I don't change the history of new uses, would some edits to the lead section for readability be acceptable? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 23:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Cfd question

I've asked some questions at the cfd you started since I wasn't really clear on what you meant. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Cameron E. Tyler

• Resolved-- ArbCom actually has a published opinion sitting around on use of A7-9 on user pages. Consensus: Usually its up to an admin patrol to place for speedy, use but do use G10 if in a major situation, and G11 very infrequently and favor of; Self-promotion (non-blog) within userspace = send to MfD. Okay, adjust Huggle filter... done. My only lament was that it took almost 2 hours and about 50 ANI archive pages to find an official and consistent statement.

♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:CULT?

I was curious about your proposal mentioned in the Cutting Moments AfD, did you not get around to it yet or did it get deleted? Шизомби (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Aah! Thank you for reminding me about that. It's been an unusual week here. Vote changed to weak keep for no logical reason beyond IAR and a little tingling in the back of my mind. This article is trapped between worlds in odd form and this will drive me nuts if it doesn't end now. I'm glad someone feels up to making the "companion" articles as well, since as a whole the notability is easy with sources aplenty with actual quotations for use. material available for that. As for the 'essay shortcut', I'd almost forgotten about that, too. *makes a note* Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Mr. lee talk officialy denied by kukiwon.
2. Many questionalble pov quotes are directly denied by historical facts and documents.
3. According to shindonga website, "무단 사용하는 것은 저작권법에 저촉되며, 법적 제재를 받을 수 있습니다."(All contents are copyrighted, do not use contents without permission)
4. Mr.lee's talk is not accurated translation.

--660gd4qo (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

First, Mr.Lee's shindonga interview is inaccurated translation. 2nd, Mr. lee denied his claim. 3rd, 'bit by bit' improving, not whole revert. And, you 'whole revert' 2 times, I think you also can violate 3rr rules. --660gd4qo (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I inserted NOTE to questionable quotes. It is not a whole reverts. --660gd4qo (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If you revert it, I can also report you ass 3rr violations. This is content dispute, not 3rr edit war. If you want participate its edit, please join discussion beofre revert, and show your "evidences". Talk:Taekwondo#POV_quote we can reach agreement. Again, this is not a "whole revert" edit war, it improving article "bit by bit".--660gd4qo (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

3rr

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Taekwondo. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. 660gd4qo (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, You miss understanding 3rr rule,

3rr rule apply to "revert" article.

• "Undoing another person's edit is known as reverting (or reversion). Reverting throws away proposed changes by the other editor (even those made in good faith and for well intentioned reasons), rather than improving upon them or working with the editor to resolve any differences of opinion. Therefore reverting is not to be undertaken without good reason."

My edits was "improving", "add", "changing".

Edit_warring#Exceptions_to_3RR

Exceptions to 3RR

• Clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy.
• Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

Also, I reverted copyvio referecnes. --660gd4qo (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:174.50.39.146

Hey,

Charmer, isn't he? ;)

I've popped a note on the blocking admin's talkpage asking if User talk:174.50.39.146 talkpage access can be disabled. Crafty (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Aahahaha, ironically, I was trying to send you a message cursing you for grabbing one faster than I did but it kept coming. Good fun though! Issuing admin seems to have taken care of it, many thanks. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've shoved a new report to AIV and User:Cunard has filed for page protection. Let's see which report gets the love. :) Crafty (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, thank you. I'm amused though, the last revert was 1000 officially counted edits for me. it was notable at least! :) ...and this is way way better than the 3 hours I spent trying to figure out "how A7" an article was last night just to see how long it could take. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI blooper

Howdy. I think ya may have accidently 'deleted' my post at the ANI. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

ACK! Erm, is the text salvagable I assume or do you need help finding it? That, or you/I could revert my post after copying the diff then place it back in. Ug, I'm usually sooooo good about double-checking things after an edit conflict. I'm horribly sorry! Really, if you need any help with it please let me know, or just do whatever you need to if you've got it handled on your own. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll just 'post' something similiar. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks to you too!

Thanks for your quick revert on my user page as well! I suspect Ryurong might have been impersonating Ryulong (albeit poorly). Thanks again, — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 09:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Good grief...

It looks like that particular vandalism account was created by the same person as Jauchegrubenvollmacher and User talk:142.161.254.171. (S)he apparently didn't like that I reversed some of their vandalism on a main namespace page, so they vandalized my user page. Pyfan reverted that vandalism, then had his/her user page vandalized. You deleted that and then got your own page vandalized. So my thanks goes to you on this one. :) Pingveno 10:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries, it was rather fun. I wouldn't willingly filter in Huggle in "most suspicious" order if I didn't think I'd get roughed up a bit. Adds character :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

David R. Brown (neuroscientist) headers

Hi, you added COI and autobiography headers to the David R. Brown (neuroscientist) page. I object to these at this point for two reasons.

1. Right now, I think other editors have combed over the page and removed the non-sourced material and spent a fair amount of time looking at it. The user with a potential COI has not been RRing or edit waring on the page, so i think the COI header can be removed unless that starts being a problem. In addition, I think it is important to realize that this is a BLP and so we should be sensitive to not junking up the page.
2. You did not add a talk section on either topic. In essence, there are no specific objections, so there is no goal that the page can reach where it is clear that these tags can be removed. I think this sort of thing comes across as more of a drive-by than a thought out addition. Obviously this is not the case since you obviously thought about this page quite a bit when you wrote extensive comments at WP:COIN.

For now, I really don't want another argument going on about that page so I'm going to ask you politely to remove those and leave it at that. Thanks for considering this request. PDBailey (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Mhmm. Actually, I see that right after (9 minutes!) I added those there was another edit that adjusted one of the few remaining problems and there have been more edits since. I've not problem removing them. As a whole, the article is a few million times better than when it started. I've been watching it since this long string started and it ended up on the COI noticeboard after, well, "concerns". Anyway, done and done. Your politeness in asking me about it versus removing them on your own (I wouldn't have objected) is most appreciated. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Your right that the article got better with respect to COI and editor review after you added them, and I appreciate that they were arguably valid at that time. Thanks for removing them. PDBailey (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I'd tell ya...

edit conflict The cookies didn't work; but, I just wanted to tell you that the "we're not Mapquest" response here made me laugh very much. Thanks for your humor. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 03:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Bill Lichtenstein page

I saw the Bill Lichtenstein page, and added a few citations. I also saw some other material that I added. I read your notes on the page; if you're 100% convinced about the integrity of the page, what more needs to be done to fix it? --Medianation (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, I guess I forgot about the tags. Without exception, I trust users (that aren't a direct party to an article) to take off any tags when they feel they've been handled appropriately, and even then they just need to ask :) All your work there is much appreciated and it's collectively sooooo much better, wow. I don't look for a few weeks and this what happens apparently. You're more than free to take those off the page; I never want them to look like stigmas or warning signs... just reminders (I have no control over the icon in the templates of the extremely official ones like those). Let's just say I had a short but complicated history with the page and for my own good felt it appropriate to not edit it myself. You've done more than enough work to be able to decide if it's in good shape or not. Again, thanks. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive IP address

Thanks for your note. I did not check IP's other edits, thanks for keeping an eye on them as well. If the IP will continue to act disruptively on Heller or other articles, it would be good if any other admin will check it out and consider a block. - Darwinek (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Other admin? Ha, I'd need a first consult since I'm told I just "sounds like one"; I'm quite new yet but am just a quick study spending time on more admin-type activities. ...But yes, neither of us would have a total NPOV on the matter, so at least 2 agreements from completely unrelated admins would be preferable. Sigh... user reverted basically all my other edits, so that's just more evidence. So much for AIV if it's across a half-dozen different articles. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am admin, but as you said I am involved in this "issue", so others would be preferable. AIV or ANI, doesn't matter which I think. If that user reverted you in the manner he reverted me, it is enough evidence I think to report him, just wait for tomorrow if he will resume his disruptive edits. Meanwhile you can revert him again or let me know, which other articles are involved here. - Darwinek (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:ANI

Thanks for your message. I left my comment and thoughts in the section on the ANI. You're right, the IP did have policy on her side and it appears that it was just a clear case of talk page stalking followed by an unnecessary block where the reason stated didn't make sense. Thanks. --A3RO (mailbox) 04:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Your insertion of a blog

I've been watching the dispute between new editors but small quoting is generally acceptable, but such the whole copy-and paste from a blog http://www.taekwonmaru.com/2510750 is not approved by the content policy. If you are not willing to check the used sources, please do not blindly revert and engage in edit war just because you do not like some editor in edit warring. --Caspian blue 16:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Um. That's not me "adding it". If you'd actually been following the dispute you'd note I've never added content. The only edits to that page I've performed are reverts from a long-standing edit war. I have nothing to do with the article itself, nor to I ever want to. I came in as a third party after a request for such and saw a very obvious case of a fringe POV trying to assert itself in an article without any actual justification and claiming consensus via number of talk page posts, being canvassed constantly by said user. User violated 3RR, I reported it hereThe reverts are not blind as they come from a user highly scolded by admins after an ever worse edit war a week ago. I could like 50 diffs of incivility from said editor in articles, talk pages, user talk, this talk, AIV notices, etc. Just... don't get me started. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You did not check the source, and such the lack of checking-source is your responsibility. Incivility and content dispute have nothing to do with each other. Since you projected your prejudice to one party not over the dispute, you already lost the neutrality.--Caspian blue 16:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I see your point. I picked a lousy version to claim was "clean" to go back to. In that case, I'd just suggest digging a few versions back before any heavy article contributors felt like having at it again. I do not at all object to the reversion of that part of the article, but the rest of the revert I'll stand by since it's the same POV pushing the most involved editor has already taken a block over and was asked to never try to pull something like this off again. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This daTheisen accused i'm a vandalism editor. He is not a good faith ediotr. He also threaten me. daTheisen, Can you keep neutral manner please? shall you? Use article talk page before reverting. --660gd4qo (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

edit war

Like above metioned, quotes from BLOG-like source, and heavily questionable, inaccurated translation still disputed. It is still disputed material. and you blanking of other interview of Mr.Lee is unacceptable.(i inserted this, reference is clear[6][7]) --660gd4qo (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As someone who heavily vandalized this talk page and the 3RR noticeboard and refused to listen to admins who informed you that you did not understand some basic editing policies and were blocked for your prior actions, you are in zero position to speak in this matter. Period. Ever. Post here again, I will take necessary steps to really make sure it doesn't happen again. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the your POV. i just add note. your blanking is also heavily vandalize. --660gd4qo (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Ohmynews Interview,

• Page over note; cleared about 20 pages of Korean text that didn't need to be here. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I want know why you delete this reference. --660gd4qo (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you forgot that I was cleared of any wrongdoing last time, and will this time as well for maybe 1 questionable edit. This is in contrast to nd admins had to explain to you that you did not understand the editing concepts constantly quotes, and that you were blocked for a day for general disruption.. Seriously-- you reply here again, I will report it as harassment. Use the article talk page. I even gave your last vandalism a pass because I found it funny, but not today. That's it now. You have a problem with what I did, report it to an admin board. Stay away. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Seriously-- you revert my edits again, I will report it as harassment. Use the article talk page --660gd4qo (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If you really, really, really want to in front of an admin group again, you're free to. I'm not going to be bullied by a vandal with a long track record. I've asked you twice, and this will be three time. ANY more content here, will be IMMEDIATELY posted.