User talk:Deepfriedokra/2009.10-2010.03.31


 * Archive Decemeber 2009- March 7, 2010


 * Talk archives for 2006 and 2007 and 2008 and 2009

Your invited!
Meetup/Miami 3 is coming up in the near future, you are invited to participate. Thanks Secret account 17:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm creating new page on "Pierre-Emmanuel Largeron". It has indeed been deleted, but i'm creating a different page with NO rights or copyrights(no website interference, it seems, because the text IS different).

Thank you :-)

user: lotr_tùrin

Mentorship
You could not have imagined the unintended consequences which evolved from short threads archived in mid-2009 from your talk page here and here. Your involvement was tangential; but this is the main reason I write today to ask you to join others in a mentorship committee for me?

As a context, may I invite you to take a look at an old edit I made at Mentorship? In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I cite this as an arguably useful context for discussing what I have in mind.

There is also an alternate context -- one established by your support here at Requests for adminship/Gladys j cortez. In October 2008, this administrator-candidate construed my words as "a heck of a good question"; and perhaps the answer was as helpful to you as it was for me. For your convenience, I re-post a collapsed excerpt from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gladys j cortez#Questions for the candidate:

Optional questions from   Ase ' nine ' ''
 * 11. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?
 * A:Verifiability, without question. What good would come of an "encyclopedia" full of non-facts, developed by a group of people who may or may not be neutral about the subject? I'm all for consensus, understand, but--and I'm sure THIS example's already been beaten to death--for quite some time, there was a consensus that the Earth was the center of the universe, and all the planets and stars orbited us. Consensus alone does not make something a fact, and encyclopediae are in the business of facts.
 * Now that some time has passed since you answered this question, perhaps you might want to try again to express yourself in different words? Your response is concise, crisp, plain -- entirely above reproach. As I see it, Asenine crisply summarized the focus: "Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?" If you don't construe this question as deserving a more open-ended and revealing response, my question becomes "Why not?"


 * It seems reasonable to press for a more fully-developed comment and analysis. Your answer can be studied by a range of editors who are unlikely to note what you do or say in more narrowly-focused threads.  This becomes a unique opportunity to affect the evolving consensus on a key point which comes up in all sorts of circumstances.


 * Now that your elevation to the ranks of administrators is virtually assured, you have an opportunity to introduce a salutatory comment. In effect, this becomes an invitation to convert this question/answer exercise into something more constructive.


 * Asenine presented a lady or the tiger conundrum -- excellent, unavoidable, illuminating. The only correct answer is the one which illuminates the way in which the alternatives and consequences are evaluated.  The question goes to the heart of the reasoning processes which inform good judgment.  It also creates an opportunity to grapple with the most difficult challenge which the most highly-valued administrators face with grace and tact -- expressing themselves persuasively about core values.


 * Diplomacy is sometimes the art of avoiding saying anything which might plausibly cause a ripple of a problem to arise -- especially in a RfA thread. I see the merit in that cautious, restrained attitude; however, a more revealing answer to a difficult question could be seen as appropriate, seemly, and welcome.  What are you willing to make of this unique opportunity? --Tenmei (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Here goes (and I'm going to make this NOT be TL;DR):
 * I still think verifiability is more important than consensus, and here's why. If you look at some of our most-contentious articles, you will find that on each side, there are people who are passionate (some seemingly to the point of unreasonability!) about their given topic. Each of those people knows other people who are equally passionate on that topic. Each of those people could conceivably recruit those others to come to WP and contribute their own passion to the "consensus". Eventually, it becomes a numbers game--who can win more people over to their side? Who can recruit the biggest, most verbally-skilled army? And thus, consensus can be manipulated.
 * Verifiability, on the other hand, as WP uses it, is a reasonably-static construct. Either there is, or there is not, substantive coverage in third-party reliable sources. It's like being pregnant; there's no such thing as "a little bit verifiable". A fact either IS covered verifiably, or it is NOT. (The questions then come up re: what constitutes a reliable source; this is verifiability's weak spot, actually, and represents one of the few ways it can be gamed, which is why we have the Reliable Sources Noticeboard--and at least part of why we have admins, IMHO. If we can't be counted on to enforce such a core policy, then what the heck are we doing holding this mop?)
 * It's impossible to base a factual item such as an encyclopedia on a construct that owes so much to the mood of the moment--the current trends in science, politics, culture, and the attitudes and opinions which people bring to those areas. Consensus is like the sand, and will shift over time; verifiability, on the other hand, is the bedrock, and is the only solid place to build from.

Issues that I identify as important for mentorship were crisply identified by Gladys j cortez. Have I explained enough?

Would you willing to consider helping someone whose writing and reasoning unfolds in the manner which is demonstrated here?

If you please, contact me by e-mail or on my talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your time and consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ruth d. thorne
Could you give a reason for declining the speedy? Sentences like "Her complex family background provided her with the essence to create very real and very remarkable characters.", "Ruth Thorne wrote about her paternal family experiences in the preliminary pages corresponding to "Dalila, pleasures of the Electra Syndrome", a psychological thriller that explores both sexuality and girl power. Page 6 of her prologue explains why she created culturally rich female characters, telling her readers that they are based in a very common yet unspoken reality" - spam central. Ironholds (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply. Dloh  cierekim  16:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Point; wheat from the chaff and all that. Thanks for the effort you put in :). Ironholds (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 's'right. Happy editing Dloh  cierekim  17:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

My band page
You recently delited my bands page (Anderson Lane) I would like it if you wouldnt do that again and if you could possibly tell me some things to do to this page so it wont be delited again in the future.

Thank you very much

-Dylan Frazier(Drummer-Anderson Lane)
 * My notice of deletion and reply to talk page note already posted.  Dloh  cierekim  20:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Your page move of St Pauls, Bristol to St Paul's, Bristol
Hi, I noticed you page move as you state this the apostrophised version is the "official version". I note that Bristol City Council in the ward profile for Ashley ward list the area as St Pauls, so I query the move. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I was just responding to a page move request that was presented as non-controversial. Sounds reasonable to move back. Really, I have no opinion or preference. Hopefully, it's fixed now. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  21:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful with macrophages
In this edit a macrophage seems to have inadvertently eaten useful content. I have restored it. DES (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:File:FriedmanJerome.jpg
-  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 22:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

APT
Hello. I recently posted an article about the APT, Amateur Poker Tour which you saw fit to delete. As this is the first article I have posted on Wikipedia I would like to know why you have deemed it unworthy and what changes you think I need to make in order to meet standards.

look forward to hearing your views, thanks, chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by N3wound (talk • contribs) 16:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * replied on user talk. Dloh  cierekim  16:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCookies for U
Hi, you may not remember me, but you were the first one to welcome me to Wikipedia (Through your sock), and try to show me how things work around here. Since I am now a full-fledged Wikipedian, I would now like to give something in return.

Enjoy! RM (Be my friend)

Wikipedia
No offence.. and i'm sure you get this all the time but get a life. Honestly, why do you care so much about what other people post on here? It has absolutely nothing to do with you. I don't mean to be disrespectful but do you actually have nothing better to do with yourself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by N3wound (talk • contribs) 16:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Donald Upton, Jr.
Thanks for your input. I pared the article down to what can be verified, but am adding the -notability- template because I still don't believe he meets notability guidelines. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: George Sabin Gibbs speedy decline
That's fine. It's a small reason why we have more than one editor here on Wikipedia and doing the patrols. Good catch! =) -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 23:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, just years of experience. Cheers ; Dloh  cierekim  23:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

are you a Y&R soap fan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.138.12 (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

carlo ramirez
pls dont delete the page about carlo ramirez.. thanks

Jolikor41 (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)jolikor41


 * Why not? Dloh  cierekim  06:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Carpal Therapist
I think that article has been deleted several times as either AfD or prod. The user page] for the creator has several messages about that and I seem to remember seeing it deleted once before. Anyway, Let me know if this is right or wrong, and ill AfD it if need be. [[User:Bonewah|Bonewah (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay
I see now that I'm not banned; well why did Brandon J. Marcellus say I was banned? I went to my talk page and there was a big X on my page and it said "This user has been banned from editing the Wikipedia".
 * reply Dloh  cierekim  01:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S: If you can please get back my User Page because I don't have it or it's somewhere else. HugeKidvsKatFan —Preceding undated comment added 01:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC).
 * replied.  Dloh  cierekim  01:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank You
For the User Page, I'll just make a replica of my Kid vs Kat Wikia User Page, no big.

--HugeKidvsKatFan (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)HugeKidvsKatFan
 * UR welcome. Dloh  cierekim  01:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Images
How do i get my images to appear on Wikipedia?

Look at my new User Page for example.

--HugeKidvsKatFan (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)HugeKidvsKatFan


 * reply Dloh  cierekim  02:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Kid vs Kat Wikia is my Home
I'll just set up this generic account so I can help when the new episodes for Season 2 come through.

--HugeKidvsKatFan (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)HugeKidvsKatFan

Ahmed Alamri deletion
Ahmed Alamri is one of my fellow friends.

He is very talented, he makes songs, basically a solo artist. He has been in talent shows but i havent inputed videos or other relevant info. I just started it then the next day i planed on getting more accurate info from himself, then editing the page and taking out the nonsense and some irrelevant info.

He has been on webstites that i planned on using and he has links to his songs and vids.

He has a talent and is well known in school for it.

Have a feeling his going somwhere in his singing career, so this would be somewhat of the journal entries as he goes on in life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daasmarka (talk • contribs) 03:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please review the links in the templated message I left. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a journal. You want a personal webhost or blog for that. I suggest Google or Tripod. Having a feeling is not sufficient for an Encyclopedia entry; we need significant coverage in reliable sources.  Dloh  cierekim  03:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
-- RP459  Talk/Contributions 04:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

article "The Research Alliance" - deleted....
Dear Dlohcierekim - you deleted my article "The Research Alliance" (marketing research non-profit organization). You told that it looked like advertising. You are right, firstly my article looked like advertising, but I edited it and I thought that it was better (I used "ESOMAR" article for example, because it is similar organizations). What should I add or delete from my article? Please, suggest - I really don't know. It is important article because there is too little information about marketing research non-profit organizations in Wikipedia, I just tried to add interesting and useful topic. Thanks in advance! Asolk (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asolk (talk • contribs) 06:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I posted
I posted my hangon speech. Why can't I have my page?

(Mzisawesome (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC))


 * REPLY.  Dloh  cierekim  21:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

One piece the abridged series
WHY ARE YOU DELETING MY PAGE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piepiepie11 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it gave no hint of what it was about. @ndly, it seems the subject, on doing some research, is already covered at One Piece.  Dloh  cierekim  22:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:overkill
You're probably right. A CSD warning would have sufficed, and I shouldn't have added a redundant only warning after that. Sorry, and thanks for correcting me on that. I'll keep it in mind in the future. ALI nom nom 02:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Pundick
Sir, how dare you suggest that I ass my sours. This act sounds like an egregious undertaking of a despicable nature, and I would rather not it even be spoken of in my vicinity. You should be ashamed of yourself, and question your upbringing for even mentioning such a thing. Ass your own sours, sir. NOW GOOD DAY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phobos1393 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, Typo. ADD your sources. Oops, too late.  Dloh  cierekim  02:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Franklin Tanner Pember
I do hope that you're not going to try and pass off a single source associated with the subject as reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. 98.248.41.128 (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but I am saying that an article about someone born in the 19th Century with that much detail had a source somewhere and a search for sources may yield sufficient information to disqualify the article for speedy deletion. I always check for more info if their is a hint of significance. There is more than one source available for this. I did not add a source. I added an external link. Sufficient assertion of notability exists that notability and the quality of sources would need to be discussed at WP:AFD. I do resent the "pass-off" remark. All I did was due diligence research so as not to not erroneously CSD an article. I always encourage others to do so as well. Cheers,   Dloh  cierekim  03:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Guns of Wagha
OK, but now it is has been redirected to Pakistani Armed Forces. Muro de Aguas (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A perfectly wonderful alternative to deletion. Dloh  cierekim  04:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

JackShestak
Yuck. Think you should drop a note to some noticeboard? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

My articles
All the articles I added, I added references for notabiility and stuff... I mean, you can't just delete all those now... C'mon, I worked hard on those, of those bands there, writing about them, referencing, adding discography with articles for the albums and all. It was a hard work right there, I don't see the problem with all those :/ JackShestak (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relied on user's talk page here. Dloh  cierekim  03:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Mohammed Daniel
Dear Dlohcierekim, Firstly thanks for not deleting the Mohammed Daniel page. Secondly, you said "clearly asserts significance, a lower standard than notability. has references, the quality of which would need to be discussed at AFD"

So, any advice so that we can remove the AFD

Greatly appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by AFANOF (talk • contribs) 10:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Replied here. Dloh  cierekim  14:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wendell August Forge
You are SO the man/woman/top dog. And I should have followed up on my instinct: that name was too fancy (too 19th century American) to be some invention. I am humbled. Kudos! Drmies (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hah!. That content was too Delphic for me not to try to unravel. Cheers, and thanks.  Dloh  cierekim  14:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Because I was editing the article about me. So I want it to reflect me. Please change it back --HermanVP (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * link to reply. Dloh  cierekim  15:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)



And why send me silly notes ? I'm so sorry I'm so sorry

Why do you come here When you know it makes things hard for me ?

--HermanVP (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Carnival glass Intro
I have edited and added to the Carnival Glass article. Still feeling my way along as this is really my first major edit. I have got the hang of Morrisque (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC) in notes and am getting to grips with Refs. More to do on refs. Did you fix my refs or did the system append ISBN to the books I ref'd ?

There were some general (un-numbered)refs there previously but those seem to be using a different system. They are general to the article it seems but i don't know how to get them in the same format as mine or vice versa. Does it matter ? My refs ref'd to a particular section and I shall try to be even more precise as to exactly where, within that section they should go. Thanks Peter / Morrisque (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ref's look fine for now. References can become complicated, but I think that looks OK. I mde no changes. if you ISBN ### the system will make the links. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  15:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Making my page relevant
I would like to make my subject at Seriousseeker to be relevant to the subject of the Christian "brethren movement" or "brethren assemblies" or "Plymouth Brethren". I do not understand the process to establish the message on the above named pages.

I feel a need to express that the title of Brethren From 1827 is that fellowship which withstood various divisions and continued the revival of 1827 without designating the names of men or places. Contact would seek to show serious seekers how this recovery of church truth continued through the years, and has sought to maintain the intent of God through the founding brothers. Thanks. Seriousseeker (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My reply. Dloh  cierekim  01:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Cannaband
The Cannaband is a legitimate rock band from the Chicagoland area that regularly plays shows, concerts, etc. In no way is the content slanderish or invasive on Wikipedia. The article written about the Cannaband was completely legitimate and serves the purpose of Wikipedia. Please contact me if you have further questions.

For references, Google "The Cannaband" and see the sources that prove the legitimacy of the article.

I apologize if you feel this was an invasive source but the references listed clearly show the legitimacy of the article and represent The Cannaband accurately.

Sincerely,

Jackxspade —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackxspade (talk • contribs) 18:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfied. Dloh  cierekim  19:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Mohammed Daniel Advice
Dear Dlohcierekim,

Thank you for the advice since which significant amendments have bee made and more will be made today. If you have a spare minute, could you let me know when does the Afd decision happen? tried to find answers, and it seems that it is usually 7 days? Thanks again matey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AFANOF (talk • contribs) 05:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Replied here. Dloh  cierekim  14:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Protercool request
I just want to have a number named after me, I thought if I put it on Wikipedia people would come and read it and then go on to use it until it was recognized as an actual number. Please restore the page olegillion. Thank you, protercool.

PS: One day when I am famous it will become a number anyway so you may as well have the facts correct and written by the actual person who named it. :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protercool (talk • contribs) 06:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied here. Dloh  cierekim  14:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Canary Islands
Please look after the truth with the name Canaari. You can also contribute to the site, the "delet only mode" you are int is not too creative. You can give one day or two, find links, put them in to the article. If you want the truth to appear in tghe article, and you know very well that truth, why donto you do something, instead deleting. Be creative! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.245.214 (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply Dloh  cierekim  15:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(Talk:Canary Islands|copy pasting to article talk) Dloh  cierekim  19:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ecw.technoid.dweeb RfA
Thanks for your advice. (thankspam alert!) :-) Ironic you should say that just now... because... two more declined speedies! User_talk:Ecw.technoid.dweeb Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 03:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi.

I am new to the editing features of this site. I recently added a link to our company website and it was promptly deleted from both the pages (mobile device management and Blackberry). The Admin who deleted the link on the BlackBerry page left a note that Advertising is not allowed. We have done nothing different than what at least 10 other companies have done on the Mobile Device Management page. In fact our offerings are almost exactly the same as MobileIron, listed in the MDM page.

I would appreciate it if you could let me know how I could have our company's offerings listed.

Thanks.

RajaBasu59 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RajaBasu59 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

links to the "Mobile Device . ..
I recently added links to our company and product pages in the above two articles.

I would like to understand why they were deleted. Our company and products are very similar to the ones already listed in thier, in fact in two cases, they are our direct competitors.

While I am sure there is an absolutely good reason for the deletions, since I am new to the editing features of this site, I would be grateful if you could let me know the reasons why they were deleted

Thanks

RajaBasu59RajaBasu59 (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ohh. Should have read more carefully


 * No, you cant add links about your products to . Additions like this and this are regarded as using Wikipedia for advertising. People do it and get away with it, but we clean out non conforming links (WP:EL when we see them. Sorry, I guess I'm not that helpful after all. No, sorry, we don't provide ad space and eradicate links that look non conforming fast as we can. I'll be glad to remove any that I see.   Dloh  cierekim  03:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
If you check my most recent edits, you'll see I've followed your advice. Thank you for catching my error and correcting me gently. In addition to apologizing, I've invited the others to trout-slap me. I extend the same invitation. Look for a reallly big trout.

Thanks again. David in DC (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. No problem. These things happen. The sad thing is the article sat that way for years. I would imagine you were overcome by emotion at seeing that and fatigued. You obviously care very much about the project and its quality to get that upset. Cheers and happy editing.  Dloh  cierekim  15:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 15:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know. ..
. . .the lawyer article you are trying to save has editted as anonymous IP on several other articles. He inserted his name and bracketted it. Because he did not have an article at the time, those inserts showed up as red wikilinks. Several editors removed his entries for creating broken links. Well, he tried it again recently on an article that I follow and I backtracked him to his COI self-started article. I firmly believe after reading an account on save the Sonics, he became involved for the notieriety. He has ambition and at about age 40 is probably looking to launch himself for public office. I know about the campaign because I live in an NBA city that also was looked at as a possible relocation to same city the Sonics moved to. In addition I follow the NBA nightly as I am a life-long Lakers fan. So, I know quite a bit about the campaign because I followed for many reasons. Just a heads-up, I don't nominate articles for the fun of it. I do it because I try to improve articles here. Self-serving articles have little business here. --Morenooso (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean Paul Schneiderman. Well actually, I'm not trying to save. I just don't think it meets WP:CSD. You may have noticed I did not decline the speedy. If I thought the article needed saving, I'd have done that. You might want to PROD, or given your concerns, take it to AFD to give it a good working over. I doubt it would survive AFD. I too try to improve articles, and you should be aware that WP:CSD are meant to be strictly applied. Not that a more aggressive admin won't honor the speedy. (I've never had a CSD sent to DRV, and don't intend to start.) That's why I passed it on down the line instead of declining. Cheers, and good luck.   Dloh  cierekim  16:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have your talkpage on Watch for replies (ergo, no need to leave a note on my talkpage) as I was working on another article. As for nominating for AfD, you wouldn't believe the saviors or preservationists who come out of the woodwork there. In fact, Articles for deletion/JoBlo.com was the article I was just working on when you put the notification on my page. Joblo's article came to my attention in much the same way as Paul's. With Joblo's article, an editor saw it and listed it on their wikiproject page which has brought on other editors to the debate. A PROD is the worse way of deleting an article. If removed, a PROD cannot be re-established and you should proceed to AfD. I am aware of CSD. If you look at my userpage, you will see my handy-dandy reference wikilink. If you click on it, you will see CSD listed. On my tabbed windows, it is the second tab open (right next to my web email). On the next tab is other references I use frequently. And in the next two tabs are other articles I am working on.
 * You may not know me but I have been at this for a while. I may not be the swiftest or the smartest but I do try to improve Wikipedia in many ways. Catching COI articles is just a side-product. It is not one I am fun of but like the sockpuppets I have caught, it unfortunately is a part of Wikipedia. Hope this helps. BTW, when I just looked at the title of my references User:Morenooso/Wikipedia References which is on my userpage, I noticed References was misspelled. Thanks to you I caught that.--Morenooso (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * you wouldn't believe the saviors or preservationists who come out of the woodwork there. Wouldn't I? . Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  16:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup. I had a phone call and was getting chewed out because I have a meeting tonight. I'd like to think like the wikistars you have, I am a defender of the Wiki too. It's just like the phone call - my hide gets chunks bitten off now and again. Oh well. ..
 * If you are including yourself in that mix (by the Would I), then you have wicked humor! ;) --Morenooso (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And, an article that I saved from CSD just popped due to a Bot - Rabbi Meir Don Plotzky. If I didn't know better, I feel like I in the movie Airplane and this is a bad week for giving up just about anything. --Morenooso (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I offer the answer 9 @ Requests for adminship/MichaelQSchmidt, cheers Dloh  cierekim  16:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a new one on me. Did I say Airplane? I meant the Twilight Zone. Angel Monroe just went down to CSD. Twice re-created and that was a beautiful one that was very complicated. I think I have some of that glue around. . . --Morenooso (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * After reading your vote on MQS, I feel like a real sluggo. Just not my day. . . --Morenooso (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * read my response to the first oppose.  Dloh  cierekim  16:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Inclusionist? I did. That's what really made my day and confirmed Joblo will probably survive. --Morenooso (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like MQS just got an Oppose for inclusionism. You can really call 'em. --Morenooso (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And my comment followed. 17:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought your comment preceeded your revert. I saw the vote by some user named Olaf. Hmmm. . . --Morenooso (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what Olaf was trying to say. I did make an idiot of myself by trying to revert what I thought was vandalism. Apparently those were links used by Schmidt in a keep argument in an AFD?? I'm going back outside. He's apparently even more "too inclusionist for my tastes" than I thought. We'll see how it falls out. Dloh  cierekim  17:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought Olaf made a good point and wondered about your revert. Am I missing something? --Morenooso (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I shot form the hip trying to revert the porn links, then saw that they were legit. Like Atana says-- extreme inclusionist. Taken in context of the AFD, they are not so bad. ANd so. Even though he is an extreme inclusionist, I still trust him to correctly judge consensus. I myself abhor labels and choose not to apply them to myself accept in obvious cases of idiocy. 17:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is, my own idiocy.  Dloh  cierekim  17:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My instinct told me he was inclusionist when I saw his replies to Joblo's AfD. And now, I know he loves film too (which I have quoting from Top Gun). Maybe I'm Shatner on an airplane? --Morenooso (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I know MQS of old. He'll be fine. I just don't agree with him @ times. Dloh  cierekim  17:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just my luck to pop up in front of probably the next new Admin. I wonder if that gremlin on the wing gets frequent flier miles? --Morenooso (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
thanks on the rollback was trying to get there but you beat me to it. Thanks  Mlpearc  MESSAGE  23:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * U R welcome.  Dloh  cierekim  23:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I thought this was a lock. ..
Requests for adminship/MichaelQSchmidt On some I voted, he looked like he was cruising in the other day. It looks like the opposes are growing. I estimate he would need about 80 Supports to turn the tide. I think some of his statements are killing him. --Morenooso (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Did I say 80? I meant 120. His support is dropping quickly. Wow!!! --Morenooso (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup. A lot of lessons to be learned here about RfA. Dloh  cierekim  13:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Snowball coming!! I think he lobbed one two many snowballs. ..
 * Not bloody likely. He may withdraw, but this will likely go the full duration and may produce a thread at WT:RFA. WP:SNOW only applies when a consensus is overwhelming, obviously 80% or greater, early on and sure to remain that way. An obviously deletable article at AFD or an RFA for a candidate with < 1000 edits and a clear demonstration of unreadiness, for instance. This will finish at around 60% support, which is "no consensus". Candidate is extraordinary and imminently qualified except that he's a flaming ultra inclusionist. The deletionists won't stand for it, and even moderates will oppose. When the opposition was delayed, I thought he was going to make it. As a rule of thumb,people are reluctant to be the first opposer in an RFA which shows early strong support. Once someone takes the first step, others are sure to follow where underlying philosophies about the 'pedia are in conflict,. This has been pretty civil. I've seen things turn nasty. read the arguments pro and con carefully. There is much to be learned here.  Dloh  cierekim  13:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have following along, especially after you pointed out the RFA to me. What you pointed out has become the catalyst and in the last 24 hours has swung the debate. It's kind of like watching a football game where the favorite has the tide turn and people are packing the parking lot to get home early. --Morenooso (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like he asked to close the RFA. I wonder if he should have done that a couple of days ago when things started getting nasty. --Morenooso (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Complex issue. An unsuccessful RFA is as painful as losing any other political contest. He probably did not feel like having to look at the thing or may have just decided to give it a little longer and hope for the best. It's important to not give up too early, because these contests can swing wildly up to the last minute. I guess he just figures it's time. It's sad really, but I've learned to place greater faith in consensus than my own judgment. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  20:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right. Wednesday looked like a lock. Thursday the tide started to turn and then I guess you have to hope for the best. Still, I've gotten pretty good at estimating the number of Supports needed to get the mop. When the Opposes go about 45, it's going to take something spectular to swing the RFA. But, that's where your observation is keen that you should wait. It wasn't this Yogi who had nothing on this bear when he said, "It aint over til it's over." --Morenooso (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Mysdaao RFA
In answer to your question sir, Wasn't his user page if that was what you were thinking. Pedro : Chat  13:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I wanted to know. As I see it, he's attributing someone else's work as his own-- he's attributing the screen shot as his own work when it is derived from Image:50-cent.jpg? How do you see it? Dloh  cierekim  14:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hard call - the licence summary does mention it includes the 50-cent image which is under a CC-BY-SA and he cleared up the issue of the Wikipedia logo at that RFA discussion section so I think it's just about okay licence wise. I'd personally not have made it but looks okay(ish). Pedro : Chat  14:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, man. Dloh  cierekim  14:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome. I'm mystified why anyone would collect photos of vandalism about themselves, but each to their own :) Pedro : Chat  14:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Tommy (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply Dloh  cierekim  19:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Speed Reading page
Why do you keep changing the content I've added to the Speed Reading page? What company do you work for?

Andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.128.158.243 (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * discussion on users talk.

Action for Children
Hi Dlohcierekim,

I work for Action for Children and am new to Wikipedia. We would like to improve our article as it is currently being randomly edited by many people, was classed as puffery (until I removed the classification -- naughty?) and is poorly written and structured. I have placed a request the talk page asking for help but wonder whether it would be possible to request that a volunteer editor reviews and edits the page. I am happy to provide sources and drafts. Please can you advise if this is possible and how/where to do it.

Thanks Heinin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC).

Teutonic vandal
Hi. Thanks for the revert of my talk page. I noticed that you blocked the guy for a week rather than indef. Not that I want to second guess you, but judging from this edit history plus his attempt to implicate an innocent German administrator on his now deleted user page, I'm pretty sure the perpetrator is the latest sock in a long string of such to cross the Rhine. They are usually called "Entlinkt" plus some exceedingly vile German phrase—named in honor of his least favorite German administrator. Favonian (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * reply.  Dloh  cierekim  19:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 21:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Helpme
How do I upload an image for an article and then how do I use it? --Will Lowry (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What kind of image for what article? Avic enna sis @ 04:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

igloo
Hi. You expressed an interest in trying igloo, but haven't responded since. Let me know if you;re still interested. A le_Jrb talk 11:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Quotations
Hi Dioh. I'm having some trouble with quotations. I'd like to know how you can get the big professional blue quotes that make the text big. I've seen {{Rquote| ... and {{Cquote|... however there is a quote in the Coffee Party article on the right with the Rquote| and I can't make it go to the left... where it'd look better. Thanks =) Tommy (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Try Template:Lquote. Cheers, Dloh  cierekim  15:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried that... and it just replaces all the content with "right" and moves the quote box to the right of the paragraph Tommy (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried playing with it and got a worse result each time. Drat. Dloh  cierekim  16:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

== Je sais on me l'a déja dit Katiminix (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC) 90.1.201.47 (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Je ne parle Francais. Dloh  cierekim  19:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (I know some?one already told me) ;) [thought i'd help] Tommy (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dloh  cierekim  20:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Doc Quintana (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Doc Quintana (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Doc Quintana (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Macrophage me!
Yum Yum Yum, vandalism? Where? Hungry! Thanks for adding a photo of me.. i mean for this Macrophage. Much appreciated :). Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 22:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK
Do you have to create an article to be in the DYK? And if you don't how much do you have to expand it? Thanks Dloh (ha sorry, dLoh) --Tommy (message) 00:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've had no involvement with it. One of these folk-- DYK can steer you straight. Dloh  cierekim  00:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks DL! Tommy (message) 00:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * S'right. Dloh  cierekim  00:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: Bongzilla edit
The text that I entered was the biography from last.fm and seemed a lot more in depth than what is there now. Sorry for infuriating you, oh Wikipedia editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.211.187 (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My reply. Dloh  cierekim  01:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey
First, it's between me and idiot, so please don't get involved, ok?

I had added information to the Snopes article that I not only verified but then provided information on the talk page on how to do so. Instead of checking the talk page though, lazy idiot just hits revert and goes back to eating chips off his/her chest.

Unfortunately that seems to be all too common around here - I've read countless "bitching sessions" posted by other people added constructive and meaningful information, only to have some lazy jerk remove it on a whim without even bothering to see what it was.

99.139.224.87 (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Link to how that conversation went. Dloh  cierekim  14:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you a wise man, or an idiot?
I have pointed out very clearly that the information I added is NOT opinion, it is easily verifiable FACT. Yet a pair of idiots keep reverting without cause, while claiming I am vandalizing. THEY are the ones vandalizing the article.

Check the talk page for Snopes, you'll see it's fact, not fiction.

99.139.224.87 (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Who are the "pair of idiots" that you say are vandalizing? Immunize (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * See his talk. He needs to calm down before he gets a block, if it is not too late. Dloh  cierekim  14:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that could have gone better. Dloh  cierekim  14:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It might have been better to back away from this one and let someone else deal with him/her. When people are this excited, they tend to act in ways we all regret. Never be afraid to say to yourself, "this person's anger is not my problem." Dloh  cierekim  14:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Hmmm, in this case i intentionally used a blank revert (Meaning no user warning) as i deemed this edit a good faith opinion. Frankly i don't really mind if a user is uncivil towards me for reverting an edit - it is understandable that no one really likes being reverted. (Though in this case i removed the message as it was just a bunch of swears.) Hence, i deem it completely understandable that a user might be rude or nonconstructive if he or she has just been warned, but if the same user decides to go to two more talk pages and repeat the same thing, i prefer having them blocked for a bit so they can cool down. I agree it could have gone better, and perhaps a 30-60 minute ban would have been sufficient in this case.   Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 15:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Igloo
I have added you to the program whitelist - if you now try and use it, you should find igloo will allow you to connect. A le_Jrb talk 16:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * thanks. Dloh  cierekim  15:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

final warning
I hate "final warning". What if no one sees a string of vandalism after the "final warning"? Then they feel like they got away with something, and just keep going. Thanks. I've been dying to say that for years. Dloh cierekim  14:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Though no this time. Special:Contributions/87.83.6.253. Thanks for your work here. Dloh cierekim  14:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For a second i thought this edit messed up my talkpage somehow, as i became plagued with "Section does not exist" problems on each and every section - Oh. thanks for archiving my talkpage Miszabot!


 * As for the template, the current version is a LOT better then the previous warning (example). You don't want to know - or perhaps you already do - how many times AIAV was backlogged, and articles became plagued with text saying "Oh, banned on the next vandalism? Whats this? And this? and again?" Its one of the reasons i like Huggle so much, as it automatically sorts the edits based upon risk assessment. Previously warned users are inserted right on top, which means the reaction time is almost instant, and escape is impossible (IF they vandalize that is). Oh, and glad to take care of that vandal. Nothing like the smell of a coffee n' a block in the morning. :) Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 14:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * SO true. Huggle sounds like a big improvement over VandalProof. Cheers, good hunting. Dloh  cierekim  14:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hello

I would like you to ask you to express your opinion about the format that should be used for the localities from Romania where Hungarian has co-official status (where at least 20% of the population speaks Hungarian)

Variant 1. Romanian_Name (Hungarian_Name) Variant 2. Romanian_Name (Hungarian_Name) Variant 3. Romanian_Name or Hungarian_Name (Romanian_Name; Hungarian_Name) Variant 4. Romanian_Name(Romanian) or Hungarian_Name(Hungarian)

There are used different formats on different articles and I think it should exist a standard format used for all of them, in order not to create mess

Thanks in advance for your answer (Umumu (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC))


 * Variant 2. U R welcome. Dloh  cierekim  16:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem.
Lozeldafan (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

hiding per blp

 * Link


 * Let's see. I reverted the removal of cited material, writing, "take it to the talk page." Don't know if that happened. I don't see a big difference between the two versions here. I'm not sure what the Telegraph's reputation is for fact checking and so forth. If good, I'd prefer the more detailed version (personal nerdiness). That could be the wrong version from BLP standpoint. These seem to be two more versions, or rather user:Lawrencekhoo reinstated a different version from the one's I saw. Lawrencekhoo stated in an edit summary that he removed a BLP concern. BLP trumps all other considerations. How do these versions here address BLP concerns? The bottom line is, could someone be sued for libel for endorsing one version or another? That has happened to Wikipedists in the past. From that standpoint, the lower the emphasis on negative reporting, the lower the potential damage to the subject or another person, the better. I generally go for the version that would be less likely to injure someone, even if "reliably sourced."  (I had the experience of being libeled by innuendo in a newspaper article locally. I called them on it and they retracted. This is a paper with a reputation for fact checking, and they got important details wrong. Whether on purpose or by neglect, I don't know. They apologized personally, and that was the end.) I have a strong feeling that "scandal: and controversy should be left to the newspapers, and given as brief a mention as possible. I would suggest that everyone discuss this thoroughly on the article talk. If necessary, it should go to the BLP noticeboard. Hope that helps.  Dloh  cierekim  19:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestion. Where's BLP noticeboard?Now wiki (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard Cheers, Dloh  cierekim  19:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy Dlohcierekim's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
This is crazy! Tommy (message) 02:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not remove anything
I have just cut the section dealing with Ze'ev Schiff and pasted it as a sub section under the section - Selecting Sources. You can check it. Megaidler (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Only warning
I noticed that you have given an only warning to Chloej1996. I have removed this warning because this user only made 2 edits. Remember that it's not the just the severity of the vandalism, it's how many vandalism edits he/she makes. Minima c  ( talk ) 17:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No I meant it. see other talk. Dloh  cierekim  17:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Insane Clown Posse
I s-protected for another three hours. The problem is that there's an overriding view that TFAs shouldn't be protected unless the vandalism is overwhelming, because the point is to showcase our best work, and that includes being able to edit it. If you want to change that, the place to start a discussion would be at WT:FAC, because it's Raul, the FA director, who is particularly against TFA protection. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 18:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I know. I felt bad about having to protect it, and I know Raul is smarter than I am. We've done the right thing, though, as the vandalism has been overwhelming. This was my first involvement with the situation, and I imagine it's a subject that comes up perennially. Maybe I should drop Raul a note just to let him know that I protected, though. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  18:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Martin Fröborg . ..
Another admin recommended using g4 instead of a7 for articles that I knew had been recreated. Sorry, I will now stick with a7 which I tagged the article with. --Morenooso (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I don't read Swedish, I cannot rule on whether or not it meets CSD#A7. Generally, it is not appropriate to delete articles in a foreign language when one cannot read them. I sent a note to the deleting admin. Has the page been translated? I'll check translation requests next. Dloh  cierekim  20:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Unknown as I am not an admin. All I know is I tagged it with because I feel the same way you do - foreign language articles should not be deleted because of the language difficulties. I can't remember how long it was after I put the translation request into the project that does that but I was dismayed that it quickly got SD'ed as a hoax. Although, I did feel that way because as per my edit summary, I follow the Lakers pretty intensely and had never heard of them picking up a person by this name. That's why after you declined g4, I went back to a7 as an SD of a potential hoax. --Morenooso (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Now you see it, now you don't. viz-- this deletion history. Oh, the joys of Google translation. Far better than a babelfish hash would have been. I archived a translated version that made it all plain to see. Dloh  cierekim  20:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I caught it after I typed my second note here. Thanks for your quick action. --Morenooso (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. But reports of the page's demise are exaggerated. Dloh  cierekim  20:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave it the third pair of eyes you requested and zapped it again as hoax. Googling his name with "Lakers" turned up nothing - teenage fantasy, I guess. I gave him uw-create3. JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He probably did not need a create3 warning today. I assumed that this is the same user who created the initial article which is why I issued him a create2 - he had already received the standard SD warning in the other username. Could be a little overkill with the create3. --Morenooso (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * God damn it. You are absolutely right. Twinkle must have done that for me when I tagged the thing. Didn't see the 3 from John. I'll make sure the "notify user" button is not selected from now on. My user:dloh/d template said everything that needed to be said. On the other hand, he went on to create the thing again. And responded in Swedish on his talk page. I wonder how much he understands. I can guess at meanings by looking at cognates. Looks like, "I don't understand English," I bet he did not understand what was happening. Now he's blocked. Rats. 01:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We all do boo-boos from time to time. For awhile while this was getting sorted on, I thought I was on a bad acid dream and I don't do drugs. --Morenooso (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He got 5 "pleae stop!" warnings after mine. next time I'll run it through Google translater. Dloh  cierekim  01:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder if he got those please stop messages because the admins were shaking out the status of the delete/translation/re-creation by re-creating it. That's what tripped me out. Other users must have thought This bad boy is at it again when in reality the admins were doing their duty. --Morenooso (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. I was the only one to recreate and promptly deleted. Dloh  cierekim  05:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

. . . new term for me
My response is at user talk:Jerzy. Tnx. --Jerzy•t 19:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Prince of Wied
I couldn't have known that just because something is derrogatory it was automatically found to be challenged just by itself. Anyway, there are not many sources about such a small Principality like Wied, but I'll try to find some. 194.38.128.26 (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

could you address my issues at Talk:Braess's_paradox
it could be a quite involved conspiracy, but could you address my issues there. Specifically, why would Dietrich Braess, who supposedly "discovered" this coincidentally communism-extolling paradox, redlink? I think this is obviously a fabrication, as it is absurd anyway. I could find no Reliable Source make any mention of this phenomenon. Please respond. 82.113.121.167 (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Google scholar hits. Google book hits Google web hits. Don't know where you looked for RS. Dloh  cierekim  01:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * per your suggestion added to AfD. Maybe you're right and not enough for speedy. Thanks. 82.113.121.167 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC).

Red Citations
I am un able to figure out what I did wrong in adding the citations at the bottom they are red and add the word template before what I wrote. Please advise as I was trying to be as carful as posible and as acurate as I could be. Thanks Schemel (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I figured it out ThanksSchemel (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ultimatrix
I see it got sorted. :) SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 06:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool Thanks. Dloh  cierekim  13:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: MRTV-4
So move MRTV-4 to MRTV-4 (Myanmar)--118.172.189.233 (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, MRTV-4 is there first and is properly referenced. If you think there is a Thai TV station with the same name, create it as "MRTV-4 (Thailand)" first, with reliable references, and then present your argument as to why it should take preference for the name on its Talk page. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  15:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

MRTV-3

 * Looks like Anthony has it well in hand. Dloh  cierekim  16:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit of research into those Myanmar TV channels that our friend keeps claiming are Thai - I've added my comments at Talk:Myanmar_Radio_and_Television, in case you're interested (and I've given Anthony a heads-up too) -- Boing!   said Zebedee  17:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Wow, Barnstar, thanks! -- Boing!   said Zebedee  17:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)