This is anarchive of past discussions withUser:DragonflySixtyseven.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page.

Please swatthesepages, we're trying to reverse a move I did after consensus was reached to undo it. –BuickCenturyDriver13:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

...for G6ingHulk (footballer) to allow for the move; I've now relocated it.Yunshui 雲‍水14:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I was under the ussumption this page was supposed to be about the user and I started it out with links to my sites so I can be found. Apparently that is not allowed so I went back to delete the links and now it won't let me save. A courtesy message would have sufficed, I would have removed them immediately. So I have now lost why I again assume is suppose to be a "note" page for me? Not really sure. Let me know if I go forever without a sandbox or if I can return it to blank or what ever please.

Clayton Bruster— Precedingunsigned comment added byClaytonbruster (talk •contribs)00:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows editors (who edit articles, ideally, not related to themselves) to write a biography or description of themselves that (again, ideally) doesn't promote a commercial interest of theirs. If you're here to improve our articles because you like to spread free knowledge, and you happen to be a commercial photographer, there's no harm in mentioning this on your user page. If what you've written about yourself would be better suited to a cover letter on a resume, and it's the only piece of writing you've contributed to theencyclopedia we're building, then you have to understand that your intentions are perhaps conflicting with ours. You may disagree, but, well, we're not here to give you a free space with which to advertise your business. --Closedmouth (talk)13:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dragonfly, after all the work we went through to this article live I thought it was of a good standard, but now their a box at the top that says its not notable? (article: Barry Cook)— Precedingunsigned comment added by92.23.167.200 (talk)12:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It says,someone is dubious about Mr Cook's notability. Can you do any better with your proof?DS (talk)02:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I dont know what more I can add, I thought we had put everything in and it was looking good, their are interviews, accolades, and inclusions on world official sites, what more can i add!— Precedingunsigned comment added byHjc2012 (talk •contribs)12:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Look at the article history. Find out who it was who added the "I'm dubious about notability" tag. Ask that person directly, on their talk page, why they're dubious, and what can you do to change their mind. Don't forget to sign your message by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end.DS (talk)13:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Dragonfly could you take longer to delete pages exposed in the YOSPOS thread? I keep missing the comedy because I see them too late. Tia.— Precedingunsigned comment added by107.16.57.247 (talk)20:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That's what Google Cache is for.DS (talk)21:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for renaming the files as you did here (moved page File:Aro.JPG to File:Arobindo Bhavan (2006).jpg) . But in my opinion these file moves should be done without leaving a redirect (as there was a Aro.JPG on commons as well which the redirect now shadows.), any thoughts ?
Also I guess the new names must be updated on the articles they have been used perWP:FMV regards--DBigXray07:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Dragonfly Sixtyseven,why do you delete a page of an organisation, which is a non-profit- making organisation? GEV safeguards and promotes the general economic and idealistic interests of all producers of chemical flooring installation products and building materials and of all kinds of adhesives in the field of occupational-, environmental- and consumer protection.It is good for people to find information about GEV and it´s certification, the Emicode certificate, which is concerned about indoor air quality influenced by the used products, therefore you should allow an article to be published.Thank you for an answer,GEV (talk)11:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Isabella Roth

This same message is on my talk and Only's talk as well. I also would like to add that I think the probability of this attempt's success is very low.

Since I can not edit anymore, I am going to have to get an admin to do it for me. SInce I am also on the Acepedia, (Ace Combat wiki), I couldn't help but look at the Ace Combat:Assault Horizon page. You need Spooky 01 in the Task Force 108 Section. Janice Rehl flies an AC-130U callsigned Spooky 01. OK, bye. Solowing106 (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC) You know what, I looked at it again, and I found a whole slew of mistakes. Any chance you could turn me loose just so I can edit the Assault Horizon page, and then block me again?— Precedingunsigned comment added by67.1.71.97 (talk)

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know which article you mean, and I don't know what account you had that's blocked. I was about to say that I don't know who 'Only' is, but that's apparentlyuser:Only -- but he hasn't edited since April. Why are you coming tome?DS (talk)19:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It's me, Solowing. I'm talking aboutAce Combat: Assault Horizon. My account,Solowing106 is blocked from editing. The reason I came to you is that you were the only other person involved with my block. I am asking if you can temporarily unblock me, so that I may improve that. Again, as an IP,67.1.88.88 (talk)20:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked means you can't edits articles. Period. So no admin is going to unblock you to do just that. And furthermore by editing as an IP, you areblock evading. The proper way to try to get unblocked is by logging back into your account and following the instructions atWikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. But unless you come up with a better reason than that, I can confidently say it will be declined.—GFOLEY FOUR!—00:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Crap. Never mind, then.— Precedingunsigned comment added by67.1.52.182 (talk)01:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I want to see up a Wiki page for Euromoney Training. I see a previous ET page has been deleted for being overly promotional. Would it be ok if I set up another that was more of a company info page rather than a advert? I'm new to this, I assume there are guidelines for this sort of thing? Thanks DKDkillem (talk)15:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead.DS (talk)16:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you please allow me to amend the page that was deleted if it still exists somewhere - or to create a new page? The initial page seemed self promoting in nature which I now understand is incorrect use. This time I would use a simple bullet point list like you have plus only legitimate factual information. This happened to several other pages, I will be sending a similar request on those. Looking forward to hearing from you.— Precedingunsigned comment added byCadava (talk •contribs)07:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Does the page still exist somewhere - technically, yes, but it's only accessible to administrators. That's the whole point of 'deletion'. Can you create a new page? Go ahead, it's worth a try.DS (talk)12:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Re:this edit. Asthe article is mostly about Fujii's reported falsification, I don't thinkUNDUE applies. At most,BLP... but we're still allowed to note negative information. I think perhaps a revert may be in order. — Crisco 1492 (talk)02:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• As a side note, that is what makes the subject notable. — Crisco 1492 (talk)02:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Please seeTalk:Main Page#Kneejerk removal?. —David Levy02:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've undone the revision per consensus at the above-linked discussion. — Crisco 1492 (talk)02:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Since when is what I do with my sandbox anyone else's business?Kevin (talk)15:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Chiming in here... Wikipedia sandboxes should not be used for displaying phone extensions, email addresses, or other private information, including private correspondence such as the email you included. Please bear this in mind when editing in your sandbox. It's possible (this is a guess) that Dragonfly6-7 searched for pages that have "@" or ".com" on them in an effort to clean up spam and stumbled across this page accidentally, though there are multiple other ways in which he may have found this page. Regardless of how he found it, please remember that whatever you do in your sandboxis publicly visible. Thank you for your cooperation!Bob the WikipediaN^{(talk •contribs)}22:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh. I don't remember exactly, but I may have had an e-mail address or two in there. If that's the case, I'll be more careful in the future (or at least, not keep those things in the sandbox for more than a few hours).Kevin (talk)00:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, was it you that restored my sandbox, or Dragonfly?Kevin (talk)00:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That was Dragonfly that restored it-- I had a chat with him and we determined that the initial edits could be restored. And thanks for heeding the advice!Bob the WikipediaN^{(talk •contribs)}04:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the positive feedback. I am slowly learning the world of Wiki.Drinkingwaterdoc (talk)16:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the attention to the article I created. If you have the time I would be interested to know what a history merge is and why it was required?Tepi (talk)08:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Why haven't you pulled it? —David Levy18:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disingenuous

Definition #3 in particular.DS (talk)18:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

My question is based upon my sincere understanding of your position.

You stated, unless I've misunderstood, that "articles about criminals or people who're accused of doing horrible things" mustn't appear on the main page "when they're still alive and subject to BLP protection".

I don'tagree with this (and I'm not feigning encouragement), but I'm genuinely curious as to why you haven't pulled TFA (which isfar more prominent than a DYK hook) or at least lodged a complaint. —David Levy18:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not afront page issue in general, it's aDYK issue. The DYK entries are short and lack depth, whereas the intro to an FA is broad-ranging.DS (talk)21:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I misinterpreted your earlier statement and wasn't being flippant above (though I now realize why my question came across that way). My apologies.

Your continued participation atTalk:Main Page#Kneejerk removal? (where my misunderstanding that you advocated barring such material from the entire main page went unchallenged) would be helpful. The discussion has included ITN and OTD as well. —David Levy00:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

An article posted in 2011 was deleted for lack of notability. I have since edited the article and added additional resources. The new content is in my SandboxCharityK. Would you please review and provide feedback? Thanks in advance.Charityk (talk)23:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI: although I wanted to help her and places many useful links (and she said she wanted to use the wizard), the result is tagged as G12 atBetty Jane Watson. :-/ (but you were right: notable)mabdul07:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I proposed that cat article of yours for deletion. RegardsHekerui (talk)16:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It happened a year ago, so it's not a big deal, but why was my sandbox deleted? I had been using it for testing out new ways to display a table for The Glee Project page that abided by the WP:Color rule, as at the time, there was like, 7+ colors on the page in the tables. I'm not sure if you thought I was trying to make it an extra page for the Glee Project or something, but I thought it was pretty clear I was simply testing out table/color editing to figure out a good way to display the table to comply with the wikipedia color and such standards.Myzou (talk)05:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Eh, it looked like you were charting the imaginary progress of imaginry contestants on your very own imaginary "reality show". That's not what userspace is for.DS (talk)13:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It was actually the confirmed progress ofThe Glee Project Season 1. I even copy-pasted the original table, as I couldn't make a table on here from scratch if I tried, lol. ;P There were way too many colors on the table, and most of them were the only distinguishing feature of what the slot meant. Was testing out different ways to alter the table and make it compliant with WP:Color, lol. That problem has since been solved though, when they simplified the table completely a few months ago. But yea, testing out edits to the wiki before actually putting them on the wiki was one of the uses of the sandbox, last time I checked, unless they changed that, in which case there's no real use for the sandbox. :PMyzou (talk)12:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry.DS (talk)13:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No biggie, xD Was just making sure I didn't do something wrong, and was hoping it was just a misunderstanding. :)Myzou (talk)07:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you be willing to autoconfirm protect my archive talk pages,User talk:SwisterTwister/Archive 1 andUser talk:SwisterTwister/Archive 2? Although it is noted at the pages "do not edit the contents of this page", I would like to prevent users from editing that page whatsoever.SwisterTwistertalk17:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Done.DS (talk)17:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Last month, you were processing AfC submissions, and you found a grotesquely obscene page describing the sexual activities and proclivities of someone far too young to legally talk about in such terms; much personally-identifying information was included.

You looked at this content, and then marked it as "Declining submission: subject appears to be a non-notable person". If I had not happened to find this material while patrolling the far end of the userpage queue, this content would still be publicly viewable, and available for content scrapers to grab for their mirror sites.

When you find such material in the AfC queue,please send it toOversight rather than simply marking it as 'declined'.DS (talk)15:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Chances are very high that i have never even saw the offending content itself, or i would have deleted it straight away before giving a random oversight a nudge on IRC to remove it altogether. AFC pages rarely require a complete and detailed check to determine what category of decline they are under - if i skim over it and notice multiple peacock words there is little reason to read everything as it would be non-neutral / advertising. If a submission is entirely without references it will be declined on those grounds, so there is no real need to check every line to judge it. If it is a copyvio then it is being deleted anyway, so no need to read everything.

It is, on (luckily) rare occasions possible to miss a page. However, A full check on every page would cut the amount of reviewed article's to about 10% of the current amount, and seeing the backlog (And even worse, up to 1 week wait time for new editors!) that does more harm then a missed attack page (as serious of an issue as those things might be). To put things in perspective - between last month and now i estimate i did about 2k AFC reviews, and this is the first attack page reported as passed, among another 17 deletions in the same timespan for that grounds.

One good thing though: AFC template will be marked as NOINDEX as soon as the toolserver lag is in a manageable condition again. It won't solve the issue, but it will at least mitigate a share of the damage as major search engines won't index those drafts anymore then.Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)}18:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care ofEuzen (talk ·contribs), but I don't think either my or his edit summary meet the criteria for suppression atWP:CRD. Would you restore them?Fut.Perf.☼21:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

? –Fut.Perf.☼09:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Meh. He was clearly very upset by your use of the O-word -- even if you didn't mean it literally, it could be taken as such. So I removed it. And then it's only fair to remove his complaint as well.DS (talk)11:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you know he was "very upset"? His reaction – one apparently slightly annoyed edit summary – was pretty much par for the course; he's been reacting with this kind of low-level aggression to pretty much every occasion I've had to correct him. And even if he was upset, so what? Let him be. It wasn't a personal attack by any stretch of the imagination, and most certainly nothing rising to the level justifyingWP:CRD (seriously, read that guideline please). Even if you judged the edit summary was incivil (which I don't accept), it would still not be grounds for suppression. Sorry for being nitpicky, but I stand by that edit summary and I would like to see it back.Fut.Perf.☼12:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I decline to reverse this particular action; however, I will not make any objection to you reversing it yourself, or to anyone else doing so.DS (talk)13:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, thanks. –Fut.Perf.☼13:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops! I just saw this discussion. I was not upset by the characterization but by the deletion of encyclopedic info and reference I found with a lot of effort. F.Perf. is one of the users patrolling articles related to Albanian nation. If they find a reference like "Mr. X of 16th century was Albanian" are more than happy to post it. If another user posts a ref. like "Mr. X was Greek" they rush to erase it with a standard palette of excuses (OR, Synth, surpassed, outdated).--Euzen (talk)14:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This is bullshit. Where's the rule that says political articles can't be on the main page?--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)And why was I not notified about this? Do you realize how much work I put into that? And you decide to just pull it from the DYK? --William S. Saturn (talk)19:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I see you did this same shit to me in 2007.--William S. Saturn (talk)19:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Will, please watch your mouth. Dragonfly, your participation would be appreciated atWT:DYK — Crisco 1492 (talk)05:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, your participation would really be helpful, or I suspect there's will be a pretty strong contingent of people looking to ban you from editing T:DYK without consensus.Ed ^{[talk][majestic titan]}07:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I've posted a lengthy replyhere.DS (talk)13:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks DS for your kind words regarding JL Richards. It means a lot!!! Hopefully there is more detail to come.Jtlanghorne (talk)18:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Ryan Vesey15:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

According to whom, exactly?Blurpeace02:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. "For user's own good" was not at all what I meant to type there, and I've replaced it with the correct rationale ("overly promotional").DS (talk)02:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I am one of the developers of the game Bitfighter

The Bitfighter wikipedia page was deleted a little while ago because of notability issues. A few months back it was covered on an independent Linux talk show:http://www.jupiterbroadcasting.com/18071/bryan-hates-freedom-las-s21e01/ (starting at about 9:30)

Would this be enough to increase its notability to allow its reinstatement? (..in addition to any of the previous sources - I don't remember what there was, probably stuff from GarageGames)

If not, could I at least get the latest source to page? A pastebin or whatever would be enough.. Thanks!— Precedingunsigned comment added by137.65.133.37 (talk)20:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Might I ask why you deleted my sandbox, chief? I needed that for a class, a class which begins in less than a week. Improper use of page? Bullshit. It's my page. It took me literally days to figure all of that out.— Precedingunsigned comment added bySawman0311 (talk •contribs)03:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Why the hell are you deleting a page that is being created along with the help of administrators, put on the talk to get some advice, and modified accordingly?? We have put a lot of time in creating this page and you just come and delete it??? This page is created based on references for book pages found on Wikipedia, so while you are at it, you may also delete the reference pages too. Your attitude is VERY questionable!— Precedingunsigned comment added byYvancg (talk •contribs)11:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Because it was hugely intensely promotional, for a book that was self-published.DS (talk)13:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The page is work n progress.The book is not self publish, the author and the publisher are 2 separate entities.This page has been shared on talk and the forum, and admins have helped making it better and requested to add external sources, which I am working on it now.I am asking you to undelete it and let me finish it before you review it again when it is done and complete.I have used the official template for the page, and admins gave me references of other book to follow the same plan. Thank you for your consideration, but please don't kill the chicken in the egg.— Precedingunsigned comment added byYvancg (talk •contribs)11:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This won't be helpful, because by "finishing" it, you will be adding more promotional material for a non-notable subject. Please seeWP:SPAM andWP:N. --Rschen775402:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank yo for assuming in advance that I will add non relevant material, such as mentions of the book in radio talk shows, newspaper and the like. I have to disagree with you on your procedure, if everyone was following this logic, there wouldn't be any article on WP. Again I am just requesting that my article in progress be restored in the sandbox so that I can finish it, with the guidance of able admins who can point at the weaknesses of my work instead of purely deleting it. (Yvancg (talk)07:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC))

Hmm, alright. What kinds of sources would you be adding? --Kim Bruning (talk)02:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I have talked this through with admins in the chat section to know what are the best references to put and again this is work in progress. We are talking about a published book, so I would be adding reviews from Newspaper, radio talking about it, etc. Again I am just akin that you let me at least sandbox it. Writing this is a lot of work and I don't have any backup. I would have never thought anyone would come and delete hours of work. This is not promotional material at all. Either you don't allow book on Wikipedia (but then why would you have a book template?) or if you do fix clear rules so we know on which foot to dance. I am not putting any selling link or whatever, just giving information about a published book, and it is definitely less promotional than most of the book pages in here. If you don't like it fine, but please don;t delete my work and at least let me get access to it.— Precedingunsigned comment added byYvancg (talk •contribs)10:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Who did you talk to, do you remember? --Kim Bruning (talk)03:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, it's been a couple of month and it was on the chat on Wikipedia. Is there any way that you can check who accessed the file when it was in talk mode? hard to remember all the pseudos here, there should be a log somewhere. I could probably remember who from a list or a log. Again all I am asking is that I get access to the work I did. If you could just sandbox it for now. It was really a lot of work to gather the info from the author, go into the coding here, and so on, I don't want to lose this work even if it is not used. At least give me a copy of my work. I don't understand what is the problem here really as again it is work in progress and I am seeking help from admins to make it publishable. It is not like i published a page without consent, it is work in progress that I am building along with senior peeps here, taking their comment into consideration. Thank you.— Precedingunsigned comment added by60.48.231.246 (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC) (Yvancg (talk)07:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC))

I recreated it because it is notable now!HotHat (talk)02:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep I got it eventually.Biodiversity Heritage Library apparently have all the volumes (with high quality scans) ofBulletin - United States National Museum, including Rathbun's monograph, and a much faster connection. However, the monograph title is not explicitly searchable from google so I didn't see it before. I found it just as foks was uploading his copy, heh. Sorry for the inconvenience, but I appreciate the effort. :) -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL05:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Now that there is some chronical distance since you last banned me, can you explain what is wrong if I express a personal opinion about some authors in the talk page? The supposedly wrong I said was an assumption that some western authors have certain motivations behind their writtings on Balkanian history. That was all. Even if it is wrong, nobody has to accept it and I didn't post it inside an article. Does this justify a 3 weeks ban?
And a practical question: This is the second time you ban me. Can I request from WP that you don't deal anymore with my edits and you be replaced by another administrator? The semi-threatening and bullying message I received in my talk page from a certain user whom I disagree with in certain articles, seems to imply that he can ban me any time he asks it from a certain admin.
Here is the message: "You've used the same IPs many times and I've logged every such use, so if you continue editing in the same way that caused the two previous blocks I'll ask for yet another block regarding all your accounts, IPs and registered ones"
Thanks in advance for your answer.--Euzen (talk)19:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I've asked other administrators to take over.DS (talk)13:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Euzen (talk)14:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, DragonflySixtyseven. You have new messages atTalk:Jeremy Cloward.
Message added 22:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC). You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Michaelzeng7 (talk)22:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you deleted the pageJeremy Cloward with the reason "Notability not asserted". I am familiar with the speedy deletion criterion A7 and am fairly certain that the page, which I accepted through AfC, did assert some level of notability. Much that an AfD would have been more appropriate. Could you perhaps take some time to elaborate more on the point? Either here or onUser:Lauriemason's talk page? Thank you.Michaelzeng7 (talk)22:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Being a candidate for Congress is not, in and of itself, an assertion of notability. Being a candidate for City Council is not, in and of itself, an assertion of notability. Being a member of the numerous charitable and professional organizations listed is not, in and of itself, an assertion of notability. The publication credits might have been an assertion of notability, if they hadn't been from a print-on-demand house, but they are. So: notability has not been asserted. Is there anything else about the gentleman in question?DS (talk)13:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Assertions of notability, no assertions of notability. Your speedy without notification was very abrupt. Although you maybe correct, I still think AfD would be the better option. Very respectfully,Michaelzeng7 (talk)22:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. As an editor with the established tenure that you have, you should know better than to insert inappropriate comments likethis one into articles. Your point about the questionable material is well-taken, since material posted on the websites of comics conventions about creator guests generally comes from the guests themselves, and that material that could be seen as aggrandizing or self-aggrandizing should come from secondary rather than primary sources or sites that mirror Wikipedia. But adding that commented-out note was not warranted, regardless of the ire with which you reacted to finding that material in the article. No offense intended.Nightscream (talk)14:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dragonfly, You recently deleted my sandbox, apparently the article was over promotional. As it is in the Sandbox and not Live, can you please tell me why you deleted it instead of contacting me, telling me where it was over promotional and allowing me to edit it accordingly.

I thought the sand box was there to allow for the creation of items in progress and to practice the use/formatting and editing of works in progress?

If my work is still available on WIKI, can it be placed back in my sandpit so I can edit to suit. Could you also tell me where it is over promotional, it is after all an instruction page for the use of a website, something the actual website referred to doesn't provide (Dunno why, but hey). ** Any chance of a reply Dragon?????????

Frwikipage— Precedingunsigned comment added byFrwikipage (talk •contribs)12:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

On the Among Others article, you removed the citations that I had put in the article. I am constantly seeing "add citation" to various Wikipedia articles, so I'm confused as to why you decided to remove them. Could you let me know why.

Thanks, --Fredrik Coulter (talk)20:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

	Thanks.
	Thanks for the help!! Is a newcomer.Ibrahim ebi (talk)06:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey DragonflySixtyseven. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developedPage Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentationhere if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us knowhere. Thanks!Okeyes (WMF) (talk)12:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You blocked George Tupou VII saying the only real George Tupou VII can have that account. There is no George Tupou VII. There is a George Tupou VI. Please unblock. In the interim, I have started this account, George Tupou XXI. There is certainly no 21st, just like there is no Elizabeth the 58th, only Elizabeth II.

If there is really a problem, please let me know before banning me like you did. That would be like saying "you are not DragonflySixtyseven, only the real Dragonfly can have that account". Thank you!

George Tupou XXI (talk)23:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, George Tupou VI has 3 children, none of them George or George Tupou VII. According to Wikipedia... the couple have three children:

ʻAngelika Lātūfuipeka Halaʻevalu Mataʻaho Napuaʻokalani Tukuʻaho

Siaosi Manumataongo ʻAlaivahamamaʻo ʻAhoʻeitu Konstantin Tukuʻaho

Viliami ʻUnuaki-ʻo-Tonga Mumui Lalaka-Mo-e-ʻEiki TukuʻahoGeorge Tupou XXI (talk)23:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Please kindly apologize for wrongly blocking me. I will graciously accept such apology if it is not rude and genuine, and feel that the matter would then be closed. Thank you kindly.George Tupou XXI (talk)23:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sure. I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't some impersonation (deliberate or otherwise) going on -- and, regardless of whether there's no George Tupou VIInow, it's not impossible that there will be one within the next 20 years or so. Erring on the side of caution, you see? On the other hand, there's definitely not going to be a George Tupou XII within the next several hundred years, so that one's fine. I apologize for the inconvenience that this has caused you, and hope that you enjoy participating in the Wikipedia project.DS (talk)23:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Why did you block my account "Carrieemma?" I had to create this new one. You blocked me saying I was more than one person using the account. Well I'm not. It's just me. How would even know if I were two poeple in the first place? You dont know me! You really hurt my feelings. I never did anything to you. I created the page for the bookJust Plain Fancy. And next thing I know I've been blocked! So I read a book and decided "Hey I'll make a wikipedia page on it!" And then you had to go and block my account. I don't even know you! So I read from your fancy-pants page that you're an administrator. Well buddy we're both just average joes with computers. And I would greatly appreciate if you got off your administrative high-horse and unblocked me. I don't even plan on making more informative wikipedia pages, I feel myJust Plain Fancy article was a big enough contribution. I just don't want to be blocked anymore. Maybe someone read my article and thought "Hey, I want to go to this person's page and ask them why they haven't written anymore great wikpedia pages." Well, guess what! I can't make anymore pages because of you! And I've seen your page and apparently I'm not the only one who you have taken upon yourself to block. Now I'm not getting into your business about those people but as for the beef you have with me I don't know why you're singling me out. You don't know me! So to sum things up I would greatly appreciate if you unblocked the account Carrieemma and I will go on my way.— Precedingunsigned comment added byEmmacarrie (talk •contribs)02:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it was because you wrote "Carrie & Emma We like to make silly wikipedia pages!" Sure sounds like two people to me. Crate a new account for each of you and you'll be OK.Meters (talk)02:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That was exactly why, yes. There was no problem with the article, but "we" = two people. Basic policy is that shared accounts are not allowed: what if one of the people sharing an account misbehaves? Does the innocent person share in the disciplinary measures, or does the guilty person get to keep misbehaving? So, in order to prevent that dilemma from occurring, shared accounts are blocked regardless of who's using them.DS (talk)12:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and the props!Victoriasays (talk)20:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The deletion log for Talk:Winster.com says it is for regrettably inappropriate use of the talk page.How can I retrieve the deleted page, and how can I find out what was inappropriate about it?Ddrhl (talk)22:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw the same post atWikipedia:Help desk#Talk:Winster.com and have posted toUser talk:Ddrhl#Talk:Winster.com.PrimeHunter (talk)22:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello,Sorry for edits without reliable references but in other articles related to other Bollywood actress everything is written over the top,so I would demand same for PC.what I did all the films of her I edited were hits but they have written moderate success and average.WHAT the hell,they are giving a flop film verdict a hit and for hits they are using average.THIS IS NOT FAIR,ITS BIASSNESS.(Pks1142 (talk)16:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC))

HiDragonfly, i need help for deleting a redirect pageTemplate:Quranlink. As currently the pageTemplate:Quran hasno redirect links earlier it was occupied byTemplate:Cite quran. --Ibrahim ebi (talk)09:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

		Thanks For Being A Helping Hand
		DS You are always a helping hand. This is especially for you.Ibrahim ebi (talk)14:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

On a similar note the following Template pages also need to be deleted. Please do check:

♦Template:Islam3 → Reason : As it is a duplication ofTemplate:Islam. And currently not in use by any article.

♦Template:Allah → Reason : As the template is not in use by any article and is only been generated for writingAllah inArabic.

♦Template:Islam2 → Reason: As its a redirect link not in use.

♦Template:Quranref → Reason: As its a duplication ofTemplate:Cite quran and is not in use.

♦Template:Quranref2 → Reason: As its a duplication ofTemplate:Cite quran and is not in use.

♦Template:QuranRelated → Reason: As its a redirect link not in use.

♦Template:Qur'an → Reason: As its a redirect link not in use.

♦Template:Muhammad2 → Reason: Duplication ofTemplate:Muhammad and is not in use.

Sorry to bother you once again but i find that there is a need for cleaning up the category.Will also be needing your assistance in deleting unused pages and clean up in the near future. Thanks in advance. --Ibrahim ebi (talk)12:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Why did you blockUser talk:IndianBio for promotion? Did you perhaps mean to blockUser talk:Pks1142 instead? The former seemed to me to be trying to stop the latter from their excessive promotion. Maybe I missed something.BollyJeff|talk00:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

... huh. You know, I haveno idea. You're correct; the rationale I used does not apply to IndianBio at all, and neither do any of the other block rationales. I've unblocked IndianBio, and am about to leave an apology; thank youvery much for bringing this to my attention!DS (talk)01:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you do something aboutUser talk:Pks1142 who keeps changing information (including sourced info) in every article mentioningPriyanka Chopra to make it look better?BollyJeff|talk13:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

LMAO at my block! Hehe, I have accepted it in good faith, and its good that I wasn't at home for the last 3 days and did not log in also. About Pks1142, I don't know the user had initially accepted that he/she is from Chopra's management, but is denying that now. Still no excuse for violating rules here. —Indian:BIO·^{[ChitChat ]}06:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, just wanted to notify you about thissudden outburst. —Indian:BIO·^{[ChitChat ]}12:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You recently deleted my sandbox, saying that it is "much too promotional." I was working on a product page for an application that I made at a university and I followed a very similar format to other pages found on this page:http://processors.wiki.ti.com/index.php/EZ430-Chronos . I was planning on adding my project to the project list on this page, but you deleted it before I could do so, and I am somewhat confused why. I also don't have another copy of my page, so to the best of my knowledge basically all of my work is completely gone. If you can, I would appreciate an explanation of how to access my old document and what, if anything, I should change. Thank you very much.Davidmace13 (talk)00:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dragonfly. This user has posted an unblock request, arguing that her username is not a blatant violation of the username policy. Personally I'm inclined to agree; it might require a discussion atRFCUN but it doesn't seem to me to be unambiguously offensive enough to warrant a block. However, I'm not going to unblock her without your say-so, and would therefore appreciate your input; would you mind commenting either here, onmy talkpage, or onhers? Cheers,Yunshui 雲‍水08:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a note to pop this up for your attention again.Yunshui 雲‍水10:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for that. FYI, I ended up declining the unblock after considering the arguments from you and BWilkins.Yunshui 雲‍水12:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you just delete them all now?Harro774 (talk)20:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Haha, nice to see you again. Remember me? Puppynicole101? Well, I'M BACK! I fixed up my page since I now understand more how to use it. (I got an awesome account on some Wikia sites.) So, Sprinkles is very happy and he is doing well. So, that's that. Thanks!

--Call me Nikki, everyone does!(Talk)21:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Saw your blockhere. There's more accounts listed atWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lizzieandpaulv2. --Uzma Gamal (talk)05:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi DS, you just closed our account. We work as a team, so it only made sense to create a group. The text and figures that we add are not made by a single person but drafted by 2-3 biochemistry students and reviewed by a lecturer of the faculty. I doubt that the majority of single user accounts have this kind of quality check. We also have 1 responsible person (me), so it would be clear who is accountable for any norm deviations.

How do you suggest we organize? We need a page to keep track of our projects. And it would more honestly reflect authorship if joint work is not uploaded by a single user who would then falsely appear to have done it all. How should we adapt our working procedure to what, in our special case, appears like unjust treatment (account closure after quality edits).

Best regards, —J.S.^talk19:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi DS,You deleted my sandbox on 09:45, September 9, 2012. The original submission was rejected for not having enough external links, and I was finally back to edit and add more links to the article. I know it's been a while, but I didn't realize that the sandbox could be deleted by someone else (or that it was public). Reading the guidelines again yesterday I see that they are public, but still am left with the impression that it's our "working space".

Is it possible to have the page restored so I can update and edit it with more links and perhaps simplify it?

Thanks.RPwikiEL (talk)12:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

My Sandbox was deleted for being over-promotional and so I want to know what specific aspects about it were over-promotional. I am not disputing whether it was over-promotional (I am working hard to describe it with passion without "selling" and appreciate I can overstep). And can I get it back so I can at least amend it instead of starting completely from the beginning, please?— Precedingunsigned comment added byRohin Malhotra (talk •contribs)20:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed you wrote: "purging for a fresh article" when you deleted that page, but I can't seem to find the new article. Does that mean we should write one? Do you think he is notable?They (talk)07:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, oops - didn't finish writing that one. Yes and yes.DS (talk)12:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you recently moved an image for theThe Green Manalishi sleeve – it's not an album, it's a single. Cheers,Bretonbanquet (talk)14:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops, fixed. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.DS (talk)14:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, DragonflySixtyseven

I am leaving you a message on your talk page because I have noticed that you have been using your sysop powers a heck of a lot lately, and not for the right reasons. You have been blocking many users on wikipedia for no reason, and alot of these usersHAVE been following the rules and standards for wikipedia. Wikipedia depends on Administrators to respectfully guide the wikipedia users, not block them for no other reason than to protect the wiki from further damage. I am questioning your motives, and I don't know if you are intentionally trying to have some sort of power over wikipedia or whatever. But, I am going to tell you that if you don't stop abusing your powers, I will notify aWikipedia Bureaucrat to take your sysop privelages away.

If you disagree or want to defend your unessesary blocks towards users, please respond onmy talk page.

Thank you,

--Detcher24 (talk)19:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You know, just the other week, I blocked someone by mistake. It was brought to my attention, and I unblocked the user in question and then apologized. In general, if I've done something you disagree with, there was probably a reason. Feel free to ask.DS (talk)20:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering if you could please explain why you have deletedBoo Blasters on Boo Hill,Woodstock's Express (California's Great America),Scooby-Doo! Ghostblasters and many more articles? I fail to see how "created by sock of blocked user" is a valid reason perWikipedia's deletion policy.Themeparkgc  Talk 03:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, reason G5.DS (talk)03:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

According to that criteria, the article to be deleted must "have no substantial edits by others". I am sure a few of those have been edited by myself and other users.Themeparkgc  Talk 03:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The user who created them is a sockpuppet of Bambifan101, who is one of the worst serial sockpuppeteers we have; seeWP:Long-term abuse/Bambifan101. He's notorious for creating hoaxes and deliberately adding false information to articles; he's extremely disruptive, and it's 100x more disruptive if material of his is allowed to stay because it's almost invariably an intricate hoax. I apologize for the inconvenience, but in this particular case we really have to air on the side of caution.The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)03:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Themeparkgc and I have both contributed to those articles and I don't see why our hard work at building those articles up should be deleted because of something that isn't our fault. I'd rather not have my work deleted and have to spend time rewriting the whole article.--Astros4477 (talk)04:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the explanation. Would there any chance at all I could get a couple of the articles userfied (namelyBoo Blasters on Boo Hill andScooby-Doo! Ghostblasters)? From memory the information in those two articles was not a hoax.Themeparkgc  Talk 04:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

−

I've looked over the deleted history of those two articles; given you seem to have written most of it, when I get back on my regular computer I can e-mail you a copy of them. Just bevery careful to fact-check everything before you recreate them.The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)04:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks in advance.Themeparkgc  Talk 04:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

While I can understand deleting pages created by blocked socks, I'm not sure that deletingList of Dance Moms episodes was constructive, since it is a valid article that has had substantial edits since it was created in June and deletion now leaves several redlinks atDance Moms. Could you please restore it, or at least userfy it to my user space so I can see what can be recoverd. Thanks. --AussieLegend (✉)09:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Will do; thanks for being so understanding.DS (talk)16:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, DragonflySixtyseven. You have new messages atAussieLegend's talk page.
Message added18:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC). You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AussieLegend (✉)18:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi DragonflySixtyseven, you blockedAippiorg (talk ·contribs) 4 minutes after I did. Were there some settings you wanted to change? Or is it just a coincidence? Cheers, --Edcolins (talk)20:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Coincidence, sorry.DS (talk)20:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem. You shouldn't be sorry. --Edcolins (talk)18:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Wiki rules as I read them stated that pages cannot be deleted without fair warning. I was storing information on my sandbox, and it seems you completely deleted it all. I managed to get the cached .html version from google cache, but I'm eager to get the raw edit data (ie wiki formatting and all) that I've been working on. Any way to temporarily restore that stuff so I can access it, or is it gone forever?Qwo (talk)22:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You need to specify an email address in your preferences (top right) so we can email the source to you. —foxj00:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay cool. Done, and thanks.Qwo (talk)01:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Emailed. Please don't put the content back onto Wikipedia ;) —foxj18:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dragonfly, would you mind restoring this? It had the keep local tag on it.SlimVirgin^(talk)00:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks,SlimVirgin^(talk)00:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedHarlan Ellison, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageGopher (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Good day, could you explain the block onUser:Vespaindia please? This is obviously an account from the company itself, but I haven't seen any bad contributions to the mainspace or even less vandalism. I only see an user that tries to create a good article through the proper channel, i.e. the AfC. This is obvious that the article in its current state is promotional, and that's why that it has been declined, and I thought that process is there exactly for that, so they can work on improving articles before they hit the mainspace. The account being promotional isn't a problem in itself if they don't contribute to add promotional stuff to the mainspace.Amqui (talk)06:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Problem with a promotional account is that it's typically assigned to the business or organization being promoted: arole account. A Wikipedia account can only be used by one single person. If there's only one person behind "Vespaindia", that person is welcome to contribute, but under a name that more clearly indicates it's only one person.DS (talk)12:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I already told him to create a new account with a name that look more "personal" and less "shared". Thanks,Amqui (talk)02:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Aboutthis diffYou are very kind. Thank you very much. Sincerely, --Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin23:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'm wondering why you removed the A7 CSD tag at GU Energy. You didn't give an explanation in your summary and it seems like you might have removed it accidentally. Bbb23 then removed a re-nom for speedy due to you removing a tag before. I believe the article qualifies under A7. Could you please take a look? Thanks!Vacation^nine02:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe there's enough of an assertion of notability to at least make an AfD worthwhile.DS (talk)03:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Found a source, a 1993 edition ofL'Actualité. An interview withRobert Morin I believe. Added to the page. --kelapstick^(bainuu)19:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your assistance with my first Wikipedia article. It's great as a newcomer to see and experience good work in action. Kudos.Rsmithing (talk)03:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I just noticed that my page on IBSEAD was deleted. If you want to read about the paper, then it is present online athttp://arxiv.org/abs/1106.6186 .

Hope that you are fine with it so that I can restore the page.

Thanks,JD— Precedingunsigned comment added by144.160.226.53 (talk)17:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No, there's still far too muchconflict of interest. Would anyone other than you and your co-author care about this? How do we know?DS (talk)17:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I was going to add theophthalmology task force, and project medicine toTalk:Epithelial basement membrane dystrophy, but I see you deleted that page previously. It looks like there was some sort of inappropriate usage of the talk page occurring. Do you think that would like resume now? Or is it worth attempting to recreate the page?Rytyho usa (talk)13:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's fine - the page was "regrettably inappropriate" because it was some woman who had recently been diagnosed with EBMD, and wanted to discuss her fears with other sufferers. You're welcome to create a new talkpage.DS (talk)13:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, DragonflySixtyseven. You quite rightly blockedGaelLtd as a promotional account. The user has made an unblock request, which has rightly been declined. However, the user does have grounds for complaint in that you blocked not only without warning (which sometimes is justified) but also without posting a message explaining the reason for the block. I expect this was just a slip on your part, but I thought it might help to mention it, so you can be careful to avoid the same mistake in the future.JamesBWatson (talk)17:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

When I posted the above message, I genuinely did think that the lack of notification was just a slip. However, in order to confirm that this was so, I thought I would have a quick look at a few earlier blocks. I was astonished to find that you regularly block without notifying the blocked user: in fact of your last fifteen blocks (as far back as I have checked) none of them has had a notification from you, and the substantial majority of them had not previously been informed that there were problems with their editing either. Theblocking policy says "Administrators should notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page", but in any case, even without such a policy, I should have thought that common sense and courtesy would mean that one would do so. In addition, a blocked user has a right to know how to request an unblock, and if you don't tell them they are likely either never to find out how to do so, or else to have to go to unnecessary trouble to find out.JamesBWatson (talk)17:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response to this on my talk page. I have made another brief comment there.JamesBWatson (talk)20:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen a talk page deleted from an undeleted article before. Ref: "12:28, 16 August 2011 DragonflySixtyseven deleted page Talk:Mobile lounge (talkpages are not forums for general discussion of the subject; they are for discussing the article itself)" Why was that done?

There's a short animated film byCharles and Ray Eames promoting the mobile lounge concept, from 1958.[1]. I wanted to mention that in Talk rather than just adding it to the article. --John Nagle (talk)20:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Feel free. The talk page just was stuff about MOBILE LOUNGES ARE COOL, I LIKE MOBILE LOUNGES, DO YOU LIKE MOBILE LOUNGES????; if you have something relevant to say, go ahead.DS (talk)23:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, updated talk page and article with cites to biography ofEero Saarinen, who designed the Dulles terminal and was behind the mobile lounge concept. --John Nagle (talk)19:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There is anAfD onfalse document claiming OR and few relevant Ghits. The article is very venerable (going back to 2001 even!) and has had many editors. In the light of your comment atCategory talk:False documents, I am hoping you are better informed than I am. Is "false document" the best term to be using or is there some fancy Greek terminology? Are there substantive references to this literary device? I can see a few people using the term[2][3] so I'm sure it exists but that won't cut any ice if the notability mavens arrive at the AfD.Thincat (talk)14:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No block notice was provided. Please please please always add a block notice as part of thegood faith concept. I know we had another discussion elsewhere about the same thing earlier this week. It's quite obvious it was not theirintent to "spam", they were simply unaware of how this project works. (✉→BWilkins←✎)15:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've changed my custom block messages to include a note to that effect. I'll be going back over my block log soon to make sure that everyone has gotten that.DS (talk)16:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dragonfly...

We had posted a brief note about our upcoming film Rangdari. This was in the Sandbox and I believe we had pushed it for the admin's verification. However, we've got the message when we logged in today that the page has been deleted.

Would appreciate if you can let us know the reason for this. We have a facebook page as well for our film at facebook.com/Rangdarithefilm.

Thanks a ton.

Rangdari (talk)13:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the content because the content had such a strong feeling of "has been written for the official advertising campaign" that I was led to conclude that the content had been copied from an official advertising page for the film. That's not permitted; it's a copyright violation. We cannot simply accept someone saying "oh, I wrote <X> so it's okay for me to copy <X> onto Wikipedia" -- if we did, we would be opening the door to all sorts of idiots who would lie.If you want to have the official advertising material on Wikipedia (where other people can edit it!), then youmust add,to the original website, the statement that all material on that page is available under either the GFDL or the Creative Commons license.DS (talk)14:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there - I arrived at your 'talk' page after noting the following in re:Emily Ballou

04:18, 28 November 2010 DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs) marked revision 397384215 of page Talk:Emily Ballou patrolled

I am nearly a stranger to the code side of Wikipedia, but I am also a nerd for accuracy, so I am wondering what protocol(s)should be employed (I would not be offended - more likely, grateful - if you explained this to me as though I were a small child), when a reader, of distant, but genuine connection to an article's subject, knows a particular detail is incorrect (a date off by at least a year), because the source citeditself got it wrong?

The page - and its source - both state that Ballou "immigrated to Australia in 1991." But I knew her when we were both residents at a Poughkeepsie, New York art colony, in the summer of 1992. We've corresponded only rarely since. If she immigrated before that year end, or as late as 1993, I could not be sure; I only know it couldnot have been 1991.

This may seem terribly trivial but - without going into the ridiculous particulars, although I can if you deem such information prudent - I can assure you, to at least one Wikipedia user, it is not!

VMarinelli 09:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I was just stalking by and thought I'd remove it.Anna Frodesiak (talk)13:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedCyclopropyl cyanide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageDipole moment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		For helping people in IRC!Pine✉20:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

....can u not delete my article...un-delete it. now.— Precedingunsigned comment added byAwesomepossum20 (talk •contribs)21:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Awesomepossum20   <----- un-delete it right now.Awesomepossum20 (talk)21:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

why did you delete my page/Asldfjk (talk)00:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Awesomepossum20, your page was an attack page. It's not getting restored. Asldfjk, your page was inappropriately promotional of an external site. It's not getting restored.DS (talk)14:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You guys attack creationism and refuse to allow us to show our beliefs!Asldfjk (talk)20:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

...i dont really care...i need it back...it was for my friends birthday.how does it concern you anyways? I wont put it back on wiki i promise i just need it so i can re-save it into my files and have it in case my friend wants to read it again...and how the HELL is it "promotional" in any way? long story short i need it back asap thanks :*Awesomepossum20 (talk)02:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

a) the 'promotional' comment was not directed at you, it was directed at Asldfjk, which is why I said "Asldfjk, your page was inappropriately promotional"; b) the page can be e-mailed to you if you activate the "e-mail this user" feature in your preferences.DS (talk)20:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

i have an email now u can email it to me thanks.Awesomepossum20 (talk)03:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The page will absolutely not be emailed to you as it was puregarbage and borderline libel in parts. Please find something more useful to do. Thanks.Reaper Eternal (talk)03:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

ok dragonfly67 plz listen closely this time. That article was a BIRTHDAY PRESENT FOR MY FRIEND.A . BIRTHDAY. PRESENT. my computer recently got a virus henceforth all my documented got wiped. I need it back, as it is MINE. MINE. NOT YOURS. I. NEED. IT. I wont post in on wiki i promise I just need it back in my files so i can send it to my friend. It most deffinetly needs to be emailed to me. thanks— Precedingunsigned comment added byAwesomepossum20 (talk •contribs)22:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

No. See the above reply.Reaper Eternal (talk)22:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Nope, sorry, your page will definitely not be restored, nor will it be emailed to you. I don't care what you intended it to be - here it was highly inappropriate and therefore, deleted according to policy. I suggest that you drop the matter and move on lest you find your account blocked for creating an attack page then harassing the volunteer who deleted it. ​—DoRD (talk)​22:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm extremely sorry if I urt your feeling of offended you in any way but its still my property an di still need it back :( this is very important to me and i cant drop it LOL I need it back i dont thinkg you understand the gravity of the situatino. This is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to not only me, (which you probably couldnt care less about) but to my friend's health and her family as well. Im not going to beg you but please. please send it to me. This really has nothing to do with you and its entirely my buisness. I have rights over my own works of writing even if you simply dont like it. Its mine and I need it back just so i can save it.I think the reason you dont wanna send it to me is because you are scared that i will re-post it on here.correct? Even if you wont send it to me can you please elaborate on your reason? Its getting me very confused and quite upset to be honest. thanks you for your atention :)— Precedingunsigned comment added byAwesomepossum20 (talk •contribs)23:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Why would an inappropriate page help your friend's health? Just send her cards or balloons or candy or something. Vandalism isn't gonna save lives. If you can't drop it, you should probably take aWikibreak.ZappaOMati23:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the page isnot your property. At the bottom of the edit page is a notice that reads, in part, "By clicking the 'Save page' button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." When you saved the page, you gave away your rights to the material. And, like I stated above, the page violated our policies so it was rightfully deleted. ​—DoRD (talk)​23:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your definition of innapropriate. You arent familiar with the situation at hand, and to clarify Im gonna explain it to you. See, my friend often acts in a very odd manner kind of like an animal. So I decided to create a false species mimicking her actions thus inventing the ilanius goblinius. Obviously its all nonesense, thats what makes it so stupdily funny. Shes very sick right now and when I made this for her in august her health improved drastically. Laughter is the best medecine after all. One day she was looking for it and told me it wasnt on here anymore, so I looked for it, only to see that it had been deleted. I appologize for being rude or hostile it was only because it was the only thing I've seen my friend be really happy about in a long time. I would very much appreciate it if you PLEASE gave it back to me. Its the only thing that will cheer her up. Ive tried everything .This is her last wish of me, she said. "Please somehow get the article back. Dont be rude to the person who took it off after all they were jsut following the rules of their job. I wanna read it one more time and when I get better I'll write one for you too." I cant even being to appologize for my rudeness or aggrevating behaviour. Please, dont let our differences in the idea of the ideal birthday present be the reason for my friends sorrow. She did nothing if anyone is guilty here it's probably me. Im sorry dragonfly67 :( please reconsder?Awesomepossum20 (talk)02:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Awesomepossum20. My user name is Risker, and DragonflySixtyseven has consulted with me in recent days about the page you are talking about. The reason that we are not willing to return the page is that it includes what we consider personal attacks directed at third parties. It isn't what you said about your friend ("ilianus") that is so much the issue; it is what you wrote about other people, people who are identifiable to people other than just the two of you. Some of it was very unkind, as you probably remember. While I can understand you wanting to share a funny story with your friend, it's not okay to use Wikipedia to make nasty comments about other people. We have a policy here on Wikipedia which we call thebiography of living persons or "BLP" policy. It covers any information about living people, whether they are public figures like Leafs players or private people like your school classmates, and administrators are expected to remove poorly sourced or unsourced negative material about any person, and to not return that information to the page or to return that page to any person. Please understand that we are not trying to punish you or your friend; nobody has taken the option of permanently preventing you from editing the project otherwise. We have simply removed information that violates our policies from the site. It is time to move on.Risker (talk)03:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)