User talk:DJ Creamity

''' Eich Bin Ein DJ Creamity! '''

DJ Creamity Yeah!

To Add
After only four months at Mother Jones, Moore was fired for refusing to print an article by Paul Berman that was critical of the Sandinsita's human rights abuses in Nicaragua. Moore stated that he would not run the article because Ronald Regan “could easily hold it up, saying, 'See, even Mother Jones agrees with me.” Bermen described Moore as a "very ideological guy and not a very well-educated guy" when asked about the incident. Moore sued for wrongful dismissal, and settled out of court for $58,000, providing him with seed money for his first film, Roger and Me.

Bagpipe world cup article
I take your point, but the article is about a subject that has precisely one website supporting it. There is no news anywhere in the piping media about it. There is no discussion of it in online fora. In short this event doesn't exist apart from one anonymous website and one Wikipedia article (created by someone who's now demanding adminship in order to 'protect' it). Calum (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

SERT-1 (spaceship)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of SERT-1 (spaceship), and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles (duplicated from my Talk page)
I see you edit a lot of power/refinery article and you are a retired Chem E. If you need a hand with an article or would like someone to work with you from time to time let me know.

If you see me editing your articles from time to time, don’t think I am stalking you, I just had the “pleasure” of writing, reviewing, and editing some fossil OMM and procedural manuals in a brief former life. You have done some pretty good work. DJ Creamity Oh Yeah! 19:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your offer and, when I need help, I will take you up on your offer. You made some very good edits to Fossil fuel power plant. However, why did you add some incomprehensible edits (which I have since undone) to that article at 11:15 this morning? This is one example of what you added "UNIQ44ee6cdc6508798a-math-0000000A-QINU". Was it simply a mistake on your part? If so, do you not know how to correct such mistakes or what? If that was the reason, let me know and I will try to show you how to correct such mistakes. Regards, - mbeychok (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont know what happened with the formatting with that edit ... its like whole strings were trashed when I edited the page and I did not even modify them. DJ Creamity  Oh Yeah! 20:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please excuse me if you already know this. First of all, always use the "Show preview" button to look at your edits before using the "Save page" button. Always do that. If the preview shows that a mistake has been made then:
 * Don't use the "Save page" button. Simply correct the mistake if it is a simple one. If it is a complex mistake like inadvertently erasing an equation and you cannot reconstruct the equation, then simply scroll back to the edit page top, click on "Article" and then on "Edit this page" so that you can start over again.
 * If you have already used the "Save page " button and then see your mistake, then go to "History" and click the "Undo" botton on your edit ... which will undo your mistake and replace the page as it was before you made the mistake.


 * I hope this is helpful. Regards, - mbeychok (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. DJ Creamity  Oh Yeah! 21:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Table

 * This is a great table and must have taken a heck of a lot of work! Just one word of advice, such work should really be developed on a personal sandbox page (that you can easily create) rather than on your Talk page. Once again, great work. - mbeychok 21:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Took me about 90 minutes on excel. I was also going to break out the units based on size as well. I would like to do one with emission data in it as well, including opacity, tons of NO_X, tons of SO_X, CO_2, and mercury, DJ Creamity  Oh Yeah! 21:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Be sure to add some references for the data or other editors will carp on that. Thanks for the Barnstar. - mbeychok 00:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review on Raccoon Police Department
An AfD in which you commented has been brought to Deletion Review, You may wish to comment there. DGG (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Elee
I'd love to get this "editor" booted. Matt Sanchez (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It would seem that with the way he is going, he is headed that way. DJ Creamity  Oh Yeah! 02:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I'd advise you to look at Eleem's M.O.; the user feigns knowledge of the existence of but ignorance of the details of policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, yet seems to be better than the average disruptive editor at gaming the system (likely through sheer experience of having been accused of violations so often). Just a look at the extensive history of problems (which long precede any of our encounters with the editor) reveals a pattern: After being accused of violations, Eleem will sift through the edits of the accuser (especially those trying to compensate for said violations) and post those which show the accuser allegedly violating policy or guidelines.  This often (though, looking at the block log, not always) successfully distracts from the initial accusation: If the alleged violation is true, the alleger is more often punished than Eleem.  If it is not true, in pointing this out, the initial accuser will have allowed Eleem to convince others that it is a personality conflict, not disruption, that is the case.  I'm not sure why that's the dynamic of WP:AN/I, but it is; perhaps because it's a forum where one editor accuses, rather than one where all involved in an article voice their opinion.  As I've said before, although it may seem a mild response to vandalism, harassment, and vicious attacks, an RfC is more appropriate than an AN/I, not only because of this structure, but also because there's more of a consensus for it.


 * In the meantime, keep your respective noses clean. And, if one of you does RfC, post a notice (on the talk page, not user talk pages), and be prepared to defend your edits and/or remind readers that the subject of the RfC is Eleem, not you. Calbaer (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I didnt come here to deal with his grief and abuse. I'd just as soon ignore his antics, unless there comes a point where I cannot. I see what you mean about gaming. I went to ANI over this and was actually admonished by Ricky81682 . These people have got to know Eleemosynary's history and behavior, and why they choose to ignore it beyond me. I guess not all disruptive editors are made or dealt with equally.  DJ Creamity  Oh Yeah! 18:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you don't want to deal with his BS, what makes you think administrators do? Fact is, I really doubt those who responded to your AN/I entry are fully aware of a majority of what he's done.  No one can "police" all of Wikipedia, so issues are responded to as they come.  The most serious accusations of all those made was not wikistalking but blanking of source information without going through the talk process.  A problem with Eleem's disruption is that edit warring can always be dealt with (e.g., through page protection and reverting), and most of Eleem's other misbehavior occurs on the talk page.  While it is distressing to be attacked, harassed, subject to prejudiced baiting, etc., such behavior is not taken that seriously by admins since it doesn't directly disrupt the project, which, after all, is about the articles, not talk pages.  Which is another reason why AN/I isn't the appropriate forum, although, as you, I, and many other users have found, on first blush it does seem to be.  (Of course, in Eleem's world, you, I, and the other users are all socks of Matt, but never mind that....) Calbaer (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I registered the info deletion over at WP:30 as suggested, and I hope that puts that canard to sleep. Depending on how things go in the next few weeks, especially when the Beauchamp article is unprotected, and RfC followed by a RfArb might settle this for good. It would seem that Eleem's rubbed enough people the wrong way that some real sanctions could be place on him.  DJ Creamity  Oh Yeah! 19:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Translation: Because Calbaer's laughable ANI postings have gotten him nowhere, he'd like to pass the work on to DJ.  Best of luck, guys.  Let me know if you need any help.  And Happy Holidays.  --Eleemosynary (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I would like to point out WP:RPA to DJC. Also, feel free to remove the comment I am currently making. Calbaer (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So that's, what, three things you'd like other editors to do for you? Talk about passive-aggressive behavior.--Eleemosynary (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * His page, his choice. Unlike you, I don't violate talk page guidelines by deleting comments on pages that aren't mine just because I don't like them. Calbaer (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Honestly, Calbaer, your obsession with me is flattering. I wish you the best of luck in filing a legitimate complaint in 08! :) --Eleemosynary (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Take this to RFC and you will have the support of a whole army of Wikipedians who have been on the receiving end of Eleemo's disruptive, POV pushing, and antagonistic personal attacks/Wiki-stalking over the last 3 years. It's long overdue and his block history and edit history (especially the edit comments) provide ample evidence to support some form of community sanction.  This is long overdue IMHO. 71.247.192.30 (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Will they all be posting under anonymous IPs? :) --Eleemosynary (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Please do not remove comments from the article's talk page  Snowolf How can I help? 23:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgot to link the page, it's Talk:Joe Lieberman  Snowolf How can I help? 23:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom Harkin
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would hope that you would take your own advice. DJ Creamity  Oh Yeah! 17:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate your comment on an Afd
DJ Creamity, I would appreciate it if you took the time to comment on the proposed deletion of the Air pollution dispersion modeling books article. The discussion on the proposed deletion is located at: Articles for deletion/Air pollution dispersion modeling books. I oppose the deletion. Regards, - mbeychok (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:SCR2.GIF
Thank you for uploading File:SCR2.GIF. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:SCR.gif


The file File:SCR.gif has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)