User talk:Dontreader/Archive 2

So long Kitt twins, say hello to the winner twins.
The Kitt twins have competition now. Say hello to the Winner Twins. With a name like Winner, how can you not like them. They are winners!! I think they are 18 years old. They don't play wimpy harps, they play with guns and more guns. Bgwhite (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * , this is the most disturbing news I have received in years. I refuse to accept this situation. The Harp Twins must not have Twins competition on Wikipedia, plus I think it's against the rules somewhere. I will nominate that Winner Twins article for deletion at once... oh, somebody beat me to it. Thank God. And look, Bgwhite, maybe the Harp Twins are not as pretty or as hot as the Winner Twins, but they do play with guns too. Dontreader (talk) 06:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't know they were Siamese twins, joined at the hip. So, Camille got all the cute genes, Kennerly got the appendix and they both share hip bone?  It's obvious to anyone why  Kennerly got fired and Camille got a promotion.  I will have to admit that Camille is the cutest and prettiest person on Wikipedia.  It's just that Kennerly  drags the twin quotient  down so low that the Winner Twins might be better.  Bgwhite (talk) 06:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Bgwhite, I thought I had seen these hideous words of yours in a frightful nightmare several weeks ago, but sadly I wasn't dreaming. You've gone way too far this time. I concede that Kennerly's hair is grimy while Camille's is shiny; Camille is so fit, whereas Kennerly has let herself go quite a bit. Indeed, while Camille is thin, Kennerly has a double chin. Camille is charming, and Kennerly is alarming. But even so, you should learn to celebrate diversity. I have shown Kennerly what you wrote, and she's all sad now, and this has also made her sister become deeply depressed. Look. Shame on you, Bgwhite! Dontreader (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, you kids.... what makes my heart go pitter-pat is someone with tenure and a finite Erdős number..... Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Abiogenesis
Hey, another user and I are trying to open a DRN so we can remove or fix the topic sentence of that page. I have seen your attempts earlier on, and I hope you would be willing to help us once more. This really needs to go through. If you are interested, just leave a reply on my page, or here. Thanks, ReallyFat B. (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I've just been and seen your post on my page. Thank you very much for the help, and we should be able to correct this in the DRN I'm filing. Be sure to comment there, and hopefully we can clear up the terrible mess those editors have made of that page. ReallyFat B. (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The DRN is up! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Abiogenesis Please make a good strong case of this, this really needs to go through. ReallyFat B. (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

please use "minor edit" check box
could you please refrain from writing the lengthy but really trivial "edit summary"? there is a simple check box called "this is a minor edit" with no editing summary required, and if you can, edit all those things at once, every page you showed interest in is flooded with your edit notes one after one, you may not realize but no one came to the history page to check who is giving a grammar lecture or add a wikilink, and certainly not to see the same person take up the entire history page for those minor edits, so please be considerate, thank you! 173.5.68.237 (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , sorry, but you are wrong. One is supposed to give an edit summary for every edit, even minor ones. Dontreader is also editing every 10 to 30 minutes, not 10 edits in 5 minutes.  Kind of hard to edit "all at once" when spread out over such a long time period.  Dontreader isn't doing anything wrong and I wish more editors were like him when it comes to edit summaries.  Bgwhite (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. If you look carefully you will find that some of my edits are marked as minor, but I appreciate the link you gave me since I now realize that many more of my edits should have been marked as minor. I will certainly take this into account from now on; however, you must understand that there is no exact definition for a minor edit, and therefore this matter can be subjective. For example, an edit that might seem minor to you might seem major to someone else, so if I'm not sure then I will refrain from marking an edit as minor. Now, regarding my edit summaries, could you please explain why lengthy edit summaries bother you? This has no impact on watchlists, unlike the major edits. Let me remind you that ALL edits should have summaries, as you can see here, and I myself really appreciate it when other editors clearly indicate the changes that they make because then I don't have to compare revisions. As a matter of fact, my general policy is to explain my edits as well as possible out of courtesy since some editors are sensitive and if I change what they do I want them to fully understand my decisions. Concerning making more edits at once, I try, but then I end up forgetting some of the corrections I wanted to make. I can't know beforehand if I will run into a string of things I believe should be edited or not; instead, I generally spot something and I change it. You can change the number of edits you see per page, so that mine won't occupy the entire page history. Thanks again for stopping by, and I will certainly use the minor edit option much more often, but even in those cases I will include edit summaries, as dictated by Wikipedia policy. All the best... Dontreader (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Bgwhite, many thanks for your unexpected message. Always great to see you! Dontreader (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you so very much i already aske the photographer of PPS to log in and upload his official photos so the photos problem will be fixed soon, i asked the rappers equipe to write a better text and i m waiting for it thank you again for allLila Karakas (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, 4TheWynne, for appreciating my efforts on that article! I hope to take it to Good Article status someday. That's the first barnstar I've ever received, and it's my favorite! Thanks again, mate! :) Dontreader (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Query: your 2-letter edit
hi; Do we have a source for "by the warship"? I read only that the bodies were on the warship. It could have been some unrelated helicopter delivering bodies to the warship. (That's why I carefully chose that word.) And should we report all previous (well-founded) conjectures, even by principals, that turned out to be right? :) Layzeeboi (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi ,


 * Regarding the warship, I was obviously careless when I made the assumption that the ship recovered the bodies. As you said, it wasn't necessarily that way. Please change what I did, and thanks for writing to me about that.


 * Concerning the early conjectures, such as the plane being at the bottom of the sea, I'm not an expert, but I think they should be kept, not only because they turned out to be true, but also to document the tragedy properly because early speculations by authorities are part of the history of catastrophic events, in my opinion. Many thanks again for contacting me. Dontreader (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I see your latter point. Perhaps this conjecture would better appear in a later section such as "Recovery effort", rather than the Intro?  Please proceed if you agree.  Thanks for your reply.  Layzeeboi (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , it seems as if what you suggested was done at some point since I see conjectures in a "Recovery effort" section. I think it looks good. I suppose the Lead section will be expanded once there is more information. Thanks for your contributions to the article, and have a nice day! Dontreader (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Redhead Express
A tag has been placed on Redhead Express requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Bgwhite (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Stormy Atmosphere
Dear Dontreader,

Following our talk few days ago, I made my changes but still would like you to check the article before I submit it.

Thanks a lot in advance! Silverray123 (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear Dontreader,

I contacted the Fireworks magazine again, and they sent me an actual PDF of the band review from 2009 magazine, where the band and the first album Colorblind are mentioned, alongside with many other bands, including famous ones!

That Fireworks review definitely can solve any notability problem... Unfortunately, it cannot be found online, just as a PDF file, but I don't know how to add it properly to my article, so that's where I need your assistance:  I had already added a piece of this review in my article in the past (added it as a picture actually, because didn't know how to put it otherwise) and it was, of course, removed by one of the moderators. LOL

So I believe this is not the way... Please help :) Thank you in advance, Silverray123 (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Stormy Atmosphere band article - approval status checking help
Dear Don'treader,

I resubmitted my article almost a month ago, meanwhile it's still waiting for approval,

and I think that other articles get before him for some reason because I had less than a 1000 articles before mine two weeks ago and now it's more than 1100 (!)

I contacted FoCuSandLeArN - the moderator who asked me about the article at the beginning but then never heard from him after that...

Do you know where/who else can I ask about the status of my article?

Thanks a lot,

Silverray123 (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Dontreader!!

Thank you so much for your help, you can't imagine how grateful I am for your assistance!

The band representative contacted me this morning, they saw the article, and I gave a lot of credits to you in the conversation, told them that the article wasn't there without your help, so...

They're about to make a post tomorrow on their Facebook page, and would like to thank you too, he also told me that they would like to send you their CD for free! The problem is that I don't know your real name and/or any other info except wiki nick...

So can you send me your contacts, so that I give them to the band and they could thank you? Silverray123 (talk) 09:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ivana Raymonda van der Veen


A tag has been placed on Ivana Raymonda van der Veen, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Wgolf (talk) 05:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)