This is an archive of past discussions. 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 the current talk page.

I posted the story "A tale of Danith Horn" on here a little while ago, and It says It was deleted for "Improper use of bookpedia" While I have no problem with the deletion, I would like to know specificly why it was deleted (So future submissions won't be wrong) and also if you could send send me the page (The text bassicly) to danith_horn@hotmail.com? I would like to save it to my hardrive. Thank you very much for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazuick ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete my userpage? I thought that it was my personal, private place to put drafts of articles I meant to post or edit in the future. And shouldn't that involve some kind of notification before you delete all my work? Turbtastic ( talk) 18:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it was just a candidate bio distilled from his Web site. I was in the process of making it objective and hyperlinking references so that it could be linked to the Wikipedia entry about the election, which I'm following closely. I'll just start over. Turbtastic ( talk) 23:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have submitted my bio twice on Wik but it keeps getting deleted. I am a well known author, editor and owner of my own publishing company. Everything can be verified very easily. Please check into this Thanks fo much Janet K. Brennan aka jbstillwater jbstillwater.com Editor in Chief, Casa de Snapdragon Publishing, LLC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbstillwater ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thetextpage to add "no consensus" or "keep"? It's implied, but a little ambiguous right now. It also looks like you didn't finish the close, as the AFD notice is still on Thetextpage and no {{ afdm}} on the talk page. I'd do it but I don't want to step on toes. tedder ( talk) 04:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• 

  Hello, DragonflySixtyseven. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
  You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm not sure what you mean by "They clutter up the unpatrolled queue." I know they don't appear in Wikipedia:New pages. Look at Venkatraman Ramakrishnan created in 2006 but Talk:Venkatraman Ramakrishnan was not created until earlier today. However, it doesn't appear in the "New pages". Now a talk page created without an article might appear there but I would delete that anyway and it would still appear in the log. What clogs that up is mainly that the only way to mark pages is through Wikipedia:New pages. The other thing is that deleted pages that didn't get tagged as patrolled sit in the lists. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, hadn't thought about sorting like that. Yesterday while at the back end of the queue I found two deleted pages that were still listed. I had also seen someone else complain about an admin deleting pages but forgetting to mark them as patrolled first but the admin wasn't working from new pages. There still needs to be a better system to see which pages have been marked as patrolled other than through new pages. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 14:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

OK having just done a quick check they do now vanish from the list. It just dawned on me which talk pages you were talking about. I didn't get to those from the new pages but from another editors contributions. They had tagged several pages for deletion but hadn't checked to see if there was a good version to go back to so I checked their other taggings. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 14:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you deleted Charles Darwin a life in postage stamps. Can you please tell me which stamp images were included in this article so that I can nominate any that are orphaned non-free for deletion? Drop me a talkback or list them on my talk page. Thanks ww2censor ( talk) 15:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am very upset about the fact that one of your "editors" deleted me because he said that my work has been "self published." IT IS NOT. Casa de Snapdragon is a mainstreem, tradtional publishing company that operates the same way that all of the major houses do. Spartz has said that my books are only sold on Amazon. They are not! They are also sold in Barnes and Noble and Hastings and all of the major book stores around the world. My book, "A Dance in the Woods" which tells of the healing time after the death of my daughter while living in a small village in Italy is a true story and has been critically acclaimaed by Santosh Kumar, who also mentnions my name in his own Wik article.

I have written for years for major magazines and have been featured in Chicken Soup for the Soul twice. If you visit my own web-site at www.jbstillwater.com, you will learn much about me and my work. Also, try visiting my publisher at www.casadesnapdragon.com. I can tell you that he is not happy being labeled as a self publisher. Casa has just submitted a book to the Pulitizer Committee and is about to publish another Pulitizer nominee, Charles Ades Fishman for his book on the holocaust, "The Death Mazurka".

If you still refuse to produce my article, then by all means, please delete it off google. It is embarrassing to say the least and could truly hurt my 40 year career in writing.

Below is the cut and paste from Barnes and Noble. I can show you many more of the book stores but that is your job to find. And I can tell you that it is all verifiable. Just google me at Janet K. Brennan

Harriet Murphy by Janet K. Brennan, John Newlin (Photographer) BUY IT NEW$15.95 Online price$14.35 Member price Join NowAdd To List uiAction=GetAllLists&page=List&pageType=list&ean=9780979307560&productCode=BK&maxCount=100&threshold=3 GET FREE SHIPPING ON ORDERS OF $25 OR MORE Learn about Fast & Free Delivery DELIVERY & GIFT DETAILS: Usually ships within 24 hours Delivery Time and Shipping Rates Eligible for gift wrap & gift message. BUY IT USED4 copies from $11.47 See All Available (Paperback)

Reader Rating: (3 ratings)

Detailed Rating:

"Book Clubs" See All

Read customer reviewsWrite a ReviewPub. Date: January 2009 280pp

More Formats Online Price Hardcover $25.95

Buy it Used: 4 copies from $11.47 See All Available Product Details Pub. Date: January 2009 Publisher: Casa de Snapdragon Publishing Company Format: Paperback, 280pp ISBN-13: 9780979307560

ISBN: 0979307562

Synopsis Come in, enjoy a cup of coffee, and sit a spell with Harriet Murphy as she regales you with her tales of family, life, and love in the early 1900's in the former gold mining town of Old Pine near Lake Tahoe in Northern California. This is a period in U.S. history of great mechanical and cultural inventions as well as a time for women attempting to gain their well deserved right to vote.

Her tales revolve around a woman living alone in the hills of the Sierra Nevada with her horse, Pager, and a myriad of other wonderful and colorful characters. Her humble abode is the log cabin that her father built for her family soon after he came across the country in the great gold rush of 1849. Although he never struck it rich in the mines, he found it a unique, yet ideal, place to live and care for his wife and daughter, Henrietta. Customer Reviews Reader Rating: Ratings: 3Reviews: 3 See All Reviews

Harriet "Dang" Murphy is a sight to behold, a GREAT read by PeggieLee Reader Rating: See Detailed Ratings

February 22, 2009: Boy oh boy...Oprah should get this one.. I could not wait to turn the pages to read what happens next. This book is pure joy filled with laughter, adventure, tears, shock, awe and even a few mysterious spirits of the Tahoe. I loved the time period ( turn of the centry) and each character woven into the stories have their unique "self" that Janet Brennan carries throughout consistently.

Each of the chapters holds a unique story that is somewhat resolved at the end, yet, the stories are all interconnected and flow wonderfully. Janet K. Brennan PLEEEEEZE don't make me wait too long for a sequel...Peggie Devan

Review for Harriet Murphy; a Little Bit of Something - CarrieAnn Thunell by louie10 Reader Rating: See Detailed Ratings

January 30, 2009: How truly wonderful to find such down-to-earth stories about a woman of great strength of character! A feminist for her time, this gal weathaers many storms of indifference and judgmentalism as she goes about the business of surviving as she sees best fit. It is with some relief that I have finally found a story teller who can spin a tale that warms the heart father than degrades it as so many of the modern writers do! It is much better to have one's spirit lifted, and perhaps even enlightened, rather thn dragged through the mud of depravity that fat woo many authors find necessary.

CarrieAnn Thunell - Editor in Chief, Nisqualey Delta Review

More Customer Reviews —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbstillwater ( talk • contribs) 22:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Pardon me for butting in: does not the publisher's website say that Janet K. Brennan is the editor-in-chief, here? And is it therefore not a bit strange to say, "I can tell you that he [the publisher] is not happy being labeled as a self publisher," when that "publisher" is either Arthur Brennan or Janet K. Brennan? Drmies ( talk) 23:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Janet K. Brennan's wikipedia page was wrongly removed and the statements made by the voting members are, at the very least, slanderous. Casa de Snapdragon is NOT a self publishing company. We are an independent publishing company and we currently have 7 authors (5 more coming under contract this year) who would be extremely upset at the suggestion that they are self-published. Before branding companies or individuals with that label, you might want to investigate your own wikipedia articles which define self publishing and independent publishers. If your "definition" of self publishing was applied to any other company, the Chicken Soup books, for example, would have been branded as self published as the editor and the owner of the publishing company are one and the same. And there are many authors in the same boat. Casa de Snapdragon's books, if you had taken the time to look, are in the Ingram distribution database and are available at various booksellers worldwide and Amazon happens to be only one. One of the places you can verify Casa de Snapdragon's distribution reach is by going to http://www.bookfinder.com and put Casa de Snapdragon in the search box or even Janet K. Brennan. I assure you that more than Amazon will appear either way.

Arthur Brennan Managing Editor Casa de Snapdragon Publishing

Yes, you are right, I do co-own CDS Publishing, but we are not a self-publisher. As in the case of Alice Seebold (The Lovely Bones) when her husband published her book. And as is the case for so many publications including Chicken Soup for the Soul. Here is the difference, a self publisher can only get their books into Amazon at best. Barnes and Noble will not touch them and they can never go into major distribution companies like Ingram or Taylor. The obvious reason being they can not guarentee supply. That is the single biggest difference between self publishing and mainstream publishing, such as Casa de Snapdragon. One of our authors was previously nominated for a Pulitizer Prize for his amazing work in "Death Mazurka" He would not be too happy to think that people are saying that CDS is a self publisher. We also have several other wonderful and talented authors (visit the site) who are not related to us in any way and hail from all corner of the earth. Labeling them as self published authors would be highly insulting and unwarranted to them, as well.

I will tell you that what really angered me was that when I checked to see the reason why they deleted my bio was that "I was a mere self published author who only sells her books on Amazon." My books are in every major bookstore around the world. See the link below. CDS is not my only publisher. I have been published by Rodale Books, Chicken Soup for the Soul, Cyberwit, HOrse and Tiger Press, and many others as I have been a writer all of my life!!!

Warm regards Janet K. Brennan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbstillwater ( talk • contribs) 00:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi DragonflySixtyseven. There is a page in wikipedia called Jacob Sheskin. He is known mainly by his last name - Prof. Sheskin. That's why there is a disambiguation. I would like to put the disambiguation back. (By the way, I don't know you, but I hope you will know no more sorrow.) Elad189 ( talk) 12:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. 

Elad189 (
talk) 17:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi DragonflySixtyseven. I notice you have granted me Autoreviewer rights - what exactly does that mean? Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 06:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation (and your confidence in me :-) DH85868993 ( talk) 01:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm so happy to see a fellow editor adding WebCite backup to articles in WikiProject Comics. Thank you for that, and I'll endeavor to step up my own efforts in that regard! -- Tenebrae ( talk) 22:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am much indebted to you for identifying that favicon. Debresser ( talk) 22:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

you deleted my san antonio park article but the reason why is unclear. The park does in fact exist and the page listed the address. It might have appeared false because my wikipedia editing skills are fairly novice, however I can assure you the park does exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefron123 ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I was late, in nominating the article, can you check? -- Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, the Kali Puja DYK is on the front page now. -- Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You know I know. Use email if you like. It never goes, it just gets more distant. Guy ( Help!) 22:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ummm.... i do not understand why you went into my name space and moved an article I was working on into main space... I was not done with the opening, or all the research since many of the sculptures later on have conflicting information, and was hoping to get it into DYK. Now it will not be able to go into DYK becasue I do not have time to flush out the opening and few other sections I wanted to create. Please ask the writer of the article before you move something like this again. -- Found5dollar ( talk) 01:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What is this; some new 4chan thing? HalfShadow ( talk) 02:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Took the liberty of sprotecting your page for a bit, please revert if you disagree DSs. Kind regards -- Samir 03:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That is me, I just want to know why being friendly with people was so bad. It wasn't like I was terrorizing to hack all of wikipedia, I said punch punch I attacked you and that I don't like Coldplay and reccomended bands. I may have been obcene but you were cussing when you threatened to kick me out. Like I care I am just bored and wikipedia was there. lol Me and my GF had a good laugh over this whole thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMagicMan666 ( talk • contribs) 16:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Please get off your high horse and reinstate the Alpo (Alberto Martinez) article. I just watched a fascinating documentary on the man's rise and fall. When I went to learn a little more about his life via wikipedia, I was beyond disappointed to see that 1) you deleted his page, and 2) you did it because you have a problem with the way the sources were listed. Who cares about what you think--people are better off having defective information than no information at all. No one in their right mind treats wikipedia as a 100 percent accurate source of information. Most of us are casual users who like to learn something in general about a subject that just popped into their head. So when you delete an article like Alpo's, you turn a valuble resource like wikipedia into your own personal forum to criticize, complain and exercise some phantom control. I went through your page and read that your S.O passed away and I empathize with you. But I also noticed that you have spent way, way too much time in front of a computer nitpicking, deleting and amending articles. If you're not careful, you're going to see that life has passed you by. But that isn't my business, nor is it any of my concern. What is my concern is how you took it upon yourself to act as some sort of information manager and delete an article I wanted to read this afternoon--the one about Alberto "Alpo" Martinez. You are very, very selfish for doing that. Please take steps in the future to refrain from deleting articles you really don't have much of a cause about. I could understand your desire to delete the page if, say, you are related to Mr. Martinez and have a desire to set the facts straight on the man's life. But judging by the prolific nature of your "deletes," you seem to be a person who spends far too much time in front of the computer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.43.167 ( talk • contribs)

You misunderstand. The point is that, in articles about people who are still alive and can potentially become upset and/or litigious, we cannot say negative stuff without providing very detailed sources. This is one of Wikipedia's core policies, and it exists both to protect people who are the subjects of our articles, and to protect us. Simply saying "page d3 of the newspaper" is not enough, since it doesn't say anything about what newspaper or when; for all I know, it could have been made up. Perhaps we should have an article about Alberto "Alpo" Martinez. But we shouldn't have had that article about him. DS ( talk) 23:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm going to have to agree with Alberto and say you are quite proud of yourself and you use this pride to assert yourself as some sort of Wiki god. You spout Wiki guidelines to shelter yourself from the bs you pull because you believe yourself to be in the right. This time you've messed with the wrong user. You deleted an article on Hack Movies on Oct. 24. I suggest you reinstate it. There are many guidelines and laws governing Wiki and throughout the land to protect people from nasty things but those laws generally stand for themselves in the long run and not necessarily what is right. I myself stand for justice and know quite a bit about the internet including being able to shift things around on other people's systems. I'm tired of playing nice with jackholes like you. I had more than plenty qualifying info on that page on it took me over three hours to create it. I suggest once and only once that you return it. You are free to report me of course but I will take action against those persons as well. You had no right to delete that article and you have to learn to be fair and just to people and not to take advantage of them just because you can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkman27 ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Erkman27, I've been asked to come in and take a look at the article that was deleted. Basically, the problem with it was that there was no way anyone else reading it could verify that it was true. To help with that, we use reliable sources (things like magazine articles, certain websites) that are independent of the company itself in order to prove that what the article states is correct. If not, anyone could write anything about anything, and you'd have no way of working out what's right and what's baloney. We also ask that stuff is notable - it means that it's featured in enough sources to be seen as significant. Generally, this means that things like forums, blogposts and stuff aren't helpful. The guys over in the Film wikiproject can probably help you out in finding if there's stuff out there that can help you. Stuff that's got a cult following usually gets picked up on, so you might luck out. Also, deletion isn't forever - we can restore the article to a sandbox - a space in your user area - for you to work on until it meets these criteria. Deletion isn't forever, we can get things back if you want to work on them.

Also, a touch of advice. There's a couple of golden rules here. One is called not making personal attacks. If you do it, you get blocked. Do it enough times, and you get blocked indefinately. If you have an issue, talk to us and we'll usually help you out if we can, or point you in the right direction. We don't make the rules - they're made by the people who use this place and we're just left to enforce them. Think of it less like a cop and more like the janitor from Scrubs and you get the idea. Anyhow, shout if you want a copy of your article, and look up those guys on the Film wikiproject if you need extra help. Laters, Gazi moff 21:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you User:Gazimoff. I apologize for being stern but this user is one of many who believe they can take advantage of people not only here on this site but many others. They must learn that they cannot just do things like that and expect not to answer the consequences for those actions. All that would have been needed is contact me through the site to say "I noticed the page you posted might not have all the info it needs to qualify. Please add more information." Instead, it was completely removed without warning. This sort of action will not fly, regardless of what authority or power the person believes themselves to hold. Regarding the page itself, as I previously stated, there was more than enough qualifying information included to verify the production company as notable. I can site pages and pages of pages that should be deleted as according to your opinion of what is notable but the truth is it is notable beyond that as I have already proven with the links and references I provided. I thank you for the suggestion of Film WikiProject. I will check that out. And yes, I would like a copy of my article. How would you get that to me? Meanwhile, I ask that you and others really look at the qualifying info included, make cross references, and do REAL research to see the associations and importance of the info provided. I ask that you put a constant eye on user DragonflySixtyseven and please do real research and make sure that others have done that real research before jumping on the bandwagon of users who simply use ignorance as their shield to be a holes. My article is completely legit, qualifying, and notable. You just have to be diligent in your research as I have done. Erkman27 17:01, 27 October 2009 (CTC)

Alright, I've recreated the article and put it in a sandbox that you can find at User:Erkman27/Hack Movies. You can work on it there, get some sourcing together and so on. I'll do what I can, but I'm no film guru - the guys over at the film wikiproject know their stuff though so they should be able to help out. In the end though it's down to you - you know this firm, you know what they do, what makes sense. Use that to find the good stuff - the mag articles, the film reviews and so on. Point to these and the film wikiproject should be able to help you out with checking them over and putting them in. Seriously though, don't sweat it about Dragonfly67. We get tons of articles added every day. Some are adverts for stuff, some are just spam, some are just random and some are really obscure. We don't have a huge amount of time to check each of them out all the time, so most of them just get deleted. It's never seen as a big issue because if it's anything someone wants to work on and improve, we can bring it back if they ask. It's like I said about the janitor thing - crap appears every day and we're left to scrub it down and clean it out. Sometimes something someone wants gets cleaned out with it. The difference is though that you don't have to wade through a load of crap to find it and bring it back. Best of luck with it, and I'll keep an eye out for how you get on. Any time you need help, just drop by my talkpage. Gazi moff 22:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Gazi moff, I've updated the page with about 20 refereneces. I hope this works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkman27 ( talk • contribs) 03:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi DragonflySixtyseven, I was wondering if you would look through my contribs and possibly tell me if there are any areas that I need to improve on before becoming an admin? Corruptcopper ( talk) 14:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Why did you use the reason test page when you deleted Samuel Ko?  Btilm  01:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 Btilm  02:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You deleted my other account, what did I do that time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 666Megadeth666 ( talk • contribs) 20:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I see you have deleted this page - was it empty? If not could you replace it please?    pablo _hablo. 10:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the page because it said "you are so cool" over and over again, and that's it. Feel free to create a valid talk page. DS ( talk) 10:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem - I was looking for a discussion from some time ago and thought it might have been there. Seems not.(although I am indeed extremely cool!)    pablo _hablo. 11:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, DragonflySixtyseven … My OCD compelled me to stick an {{ Unsigned2}} on File talk:Touched by His Noodly Appendage.jpg after another anon created it, even though it was a nonsense edit … I never thought to do a {{ Db-test}}, but upon reflection I agree that deleting it was a Good Call, and I'll try to remember to do that the next time I see the same kind of activity. :-)

Happy Editing! — 138.88.125.101 ( talk · contribs) _{01:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)}

Do you want a custom signature? I would be happy to make you one.  Btilm  04:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete the article? I added multiple reliable sources with significant coverage to it. Also, iPhone applications can't be speedied. Joe Chill ( talk) 20:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to user page edit: This isn't hostile. Joe Chill ( talk) 20:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You called me stupid and said that my comment was hostile so you obviously won't be any help. Joe Chill ( talk) 20:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi DragonflySixtyseven! Despite the fact that I endorsed the PROD (which was later contested), quite a few established editors contributed to the article, and I do not think it should be deleted without discussion. Would you consider reversing the deletion and listing the article at AfD? Regards, decltype ( talk) 00:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. Now, since the PROD was contested, clearly there's disagreement as to whether the article falls under WP:NOT..or not. In such cases I believe it is for the community to decide whether the subject is appropriate for inclusion. I am therefore listing the article at DRV. Regards, decltype ( talk) 06:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Murder of Somer Thompson. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. decltype ( talk) 06:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for helping at DYK. I understand you are as administrator; however, it is customary to place a hook that is rejected back into the Talk template to resolve any issues that were brought up. The hook from Prep 2 had two other alt hook suggestions. Are you declining both these articles as ineligible? Thanks in advance Calmer Waters 14:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Dragonfly, I was looking over your recent deletions following the discussion at DRV and wanted some confirmation. What CSD criteria do you categorize GMapCatcher and OKTECH Profiler ("not yet notable") under? Both of those are computer software, which means A7 and A9 don't apply. At the very least, proposed deletions and given them seven days would seem appropriate. My real concern is your deletion of File:Stillsmallvoicecrew.jpg, a public domained image. You said "image used only by a deleted page" but that's not G8 (pages dependent on deleted pages), nor F5 (which only covers unfree images). There may be a source problem given it's supposedly from facebook, but that still requires seven days for the author to review. Last, you deleted Firepower (iPhone App) for "notability not asserted" even though the article cited this Wired mention? I think the thing is stupid and not likely to survive a prod or an AFD but I don't see what CSD criteria fits. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, I see that you deleted this version of Westbang (again, "notability not asserted") which cites MacWorld and PCWorld and seems to be passing AFD. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to ask why you deleted Firepower for "notability not asserted" when it cited both wired.com as well as snitched.com articles? That you do not agree with the subject matter or having an opinion that you find something is "stupid" is not sufficient reason for removal of a qualified article. Todkin ( talk) 17:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, sorry. Misread the article; it's back. DS ( talk) 17:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi User:DragonflySixtyseven,

You do not know me. I came across your username from a section of an article which you had restored a while ago. I was going to extend appreciation for your efforts with that article.

However, now that I have read your initial greeting page, I want to say I am truly, truly sorry for the loss you have just experienced of your partner/partner-to-be... Sometimes life doesn't make much sense... I feel tremendous sympathy for you and again am very sorry you had to experience something like that...

Wishing you the Best going forward, Steve... Stevenmitchell ( talk) 10:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I am wondering why Zovue was deleted. Its notability was certainly present and described in the accompanying references. Can you indicate why you deleted this article? Was it just that personally you thought it was not notable?

Fredrocks 15:53, 6 November 2009

Hi,

I was wondering why the article for Ken (Knowledge) at 19:46 on 23rd October 2009 was deleted? It says "not an article" but I am not sure what that means. It is a real word if that was the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.64.235 ( talk) 00:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I know it's a word; the problem is that what was submitted wasn't an article. It was more suited for our sibling project Wiktionary, I think. DS ( talk) 02:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration of moving it rather than deleting it. As I am sure is the case with many contributors I have more things I want to work on than time to work on them. I will get back to Washington Stage Guild, but right now it is lower down on my list

ed Ecragg ( talk) 16:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no wish to publically disclose my primary account, nor do I need to. I'll consider notifying a checkuser, if that's what you mean. Small-town hero ( talk) 16:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The external links are already linked below, in the section for that purpose, External links. :P There is no need to also link them within the main article's body text as well. Cirt ( talk) 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you deleted the article The Andreas Kapsalis Trio for being overly promotional, while I was adding a fanpov tag to suggest it needed to be cleaned up. The subject appeared quite notable, although the article certainly had issues. Would you consider posting a copy of the article to my userspace so I might have a go at cleaning it up? Ivanvector ( talk) 14:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your Tone

I DO NOT appreciate your tone in your message on my user page. YES I did a text dump. YES I WAS WORKING ON WIKIFYING IT WHEN YOU CAME ALONG AND ARBITRARILY DELETED IT. NOT SO MUCH AS A MESSAGE ASKING WHAT I WAS DOING, IF I WAS WORKING ON IT OR ANYTHING! Maybe I could have/should have used my sandbox. Big deal. I will go back to working on the article again now, if that is perfectly ok by you that is! NEXT TIME USE SOME MANNERS! Jcuk ( talk) 21:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Lots of sockpuppet pages, limited to the first 1,000 results: http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=326103214 -- MZMcBride ( talk) 05:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete this? Your comment, "dealt with" is hardly helpful. Phil Bridger ( talk) 19:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation, but please remember that most of us can't see deleted pages to see what has been done, so a clearer statement in the deletion log would have stopped both of us from wasting our time over this non-issue. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your valuable and sometimes unrecognized work on Special:Newpages, I want you to have this pointy bauble. :) A little insignificant Giving thanks to all that is me 23:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You deleted this page afew days ago. I see no reason listed in the discussion page. Can you explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HBoulette ( talk • contribs) 12:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm a librarian at the University of Portsmouth and wrote an article about the expression above after finding very little info about otherwise on the web. It's important because I use the effect in a project I'm working on and want to be able to reference the references that exist to it.

I carefully collected everything I knew about it and where it came from and thought I'd adequately referenced those sources. So I'm a bit puzzled by why the article has been deleted. As this is my first 'outing' with trying to contribute something, any help/explanation would be appreciated.

(And no chance the article could be put back at least until after 30th November when I have to give a presentation at another University on the subject?!)

Many thanks. Timpaa ( talk) 11:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Timpaa

I have already stated and retracted my statement about the 1st Amendment of The US Constitution. Quoting the United Nations guidelines of Basic Human Rights, however, there were statements made that went against those. In any case, this is all a dead issue now because there were never any cruel intentions and only people seeing the humor in the whole issue. Our differences have been put aside and peace, love, and happiness is all that exist now. Thank you for the re-enlightenment though. People, including myself when I made certain previous comments, sound silly quoting that. This is obviously a great site that you can find anything of significant value about. If you can't find it, research it and create it! I am a strong supporter of Wikipedia and their staff and have the utmost respect for them. Thanks again and take care! Gomezbuster ( talk) 20:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the American Government could stop me with Military force if I were to claim secession from the United States. It's kind of the entire yelling, "Fire" in a crowded place. Legislation exists to stop certain abuses people claim defense under the First Amendment.

As far as Timonia being a "made-up micronation," that is not the case. It is just not something significant enough at this point for Wikipedia and I understand why. It is, however, not made up! If that is the case, anyone could claim that Europe was made up, that America was made up, etc. At some point in time, someone somewhere declared their independence for each country that exists. We know most of them today by what they are. Other people in history called several places by different names however. Names are mere relative associations of entities. Some stick but most do not and most countries are known today by what historians and people that won wars named them. Gomezbuster ( talk) 20:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone may want to go ahead and put something up against this as well-

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

I can see someone trying to defend their insignificant article with that. Gomezbuster ( talk) 21:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello dear comrade. This same user has been creating multiple accounts and hasn't stopped hounding my edits or user page for the last 5 years. I don't know how to deal with this problem. His ip addresses are synonymous with 166.137.6.132, 166.137.8.158, 166.137.6.25, 166.137.9.58. All have a 166.137 denomination. He also uses other computers and runs around to annoy and instigate problems from different accounts. I've tried to avoid it entirely in the past, but what he does is put up afd (article for deletion) proposals on many of the articles I've worked on, or even deletes much of my information, or just plain vandalizes my user and talk page. I don't know why this person does this, but is there a way to block this person entirely from editing in a way that we can avoid this problem entirely. He instigates me to revert his vandalism and I've been blocked before for breaking the 3rr rule on numerous articles; where I've reverted his madness over 3 times; and that's resulted in my being blocked before. I seriously want to avoid that dilemma, so I'm hoping my asking for help doesn't fall on deaf ears. There has to be a way to stop this person from vandalizing and adding nonsense and gibberish on my user and talk pages. This user Lord Freeza is yet another sockpuppet of the aforementioned ip addresses. He has been adding afd tags like I had warned prior; he is also the person responsible for having all the numerous sockpuppets. He has a long history of following my contributions and either vandalizing or reverting them, or adding afd tags (example: Brendan Filone). Please help me deal with this situation. I had hoped that he would have stopped this incessant vandalism and gibberish, but after 5 years, he's still an idiot and has continued the same moronic behavior. I appreciate any and all help I can receive. For a near-complete list of this user's sockpuppets, please refer to Wiki-star, Frieza-Bomber, Taracka, and Dragon Emperor. If you scroll through the suspected and confirmed sockpuppets list, you will find over 50 further user names attached to this person's vandalism. - Zarbon ( talk) 16:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, the star belongs to Michael Jackson, the singer and pop star. If you look at the camera details (Metadata) [1] you will notice that I took the picture the 9th of July, several days later of the Brüno movie premiere, which was held on the 25th of June. At the moment I took the picture the barricades were already taken away. Additionally, two days before that day the Michael Jackson memorial was held at Staples Center. Taty2007 ( talk) 18:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dragonfly, I'm an inexperienced Wikipedia user, and I noticed that you have deleted the talk page for the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. Before I make a first entry on the talk page, I wanted to check with you to determine what the criteria for deleting a talk page was.

Cheers, Hughstimson ( talk) 21:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

   * 23:46, 12 August 2009 DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary" ‎ (homework)

I've been following Bortle Dark-Sky Scale for some time and wasn't aware of any issues with its talk page. What occurred which would prompt deletion? Trilobitealive ( talk) 02:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Someone had copypasted a bunch of copyvio into the (previously empty) talkpage. So I deleted it. Feel free to start a new talkpage. DS (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)" Thanks for the quick reply. I was just curious. I'd probably have reverted it when I saw it. See you around. Trilobitealive ( talk) 02:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon, this is a dumb question. I was looking at WP:DEL and they provide a template {{db-test}} for the purpose asking for removal of test pages which have outlived their usefulness but they also have a rule against putting it in one's own userspace. I created a temporary page User:Trilobitealive/List of telescope construction topics and even though I could remove the content I can't get rid of the page itself. Is there any way to work around this other than sticking strictly to my permanent test pages? Or does it really not matter so that I should just blank the page, cut my links to it and forget it? Trilobitealive ( talk) 01:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Trilobitealive ( talk) 03:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry. It's just that watching people defend that stuff is irritating. People love to attack Wikipedia because of silly stuff like that and Fish's arguments were laughble. I'll try to be more calm next time. Are you a goon or part of the Anime project?-- Ace Oliveira ( talk) 20:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

So you browse GBS and the other sub forums but you aren't a member? Shit, I do that too. I wanna register but I can't really do it for a few reasons. The goons in ADTRW aren't neckbeards like mosts animu motherfuckers around here. Lowtax should be proud of that.-- Ace Oliveira ( talk) 22:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Article deletion: I submitted an article about a Dr. Marcelo Hochman - why was it deleted? Practicemgr ( talk) 19:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wewt... thanks... not sure it's really that big a change, and isn't going to exactly change anything, but thanks all the same... - Adolphus79 ( talk) 05:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I am confident that you will be able to rethink your renaming of an article as "Historical disputes about the shape of the Crucifix", and so I bring my doubts about its appropriateness here to you rather than raising it on the article's Talk page.

The most important difficulty is the word "Crucifix". A crucifix is an image of Christ on the cross, is it not? The article is not about an image. It is not about a crucifix. It is about one particular physical object, which is generally called the "cross" (not the "crucifix") of Christ, but which Jehovah's Witnesses say should be called not a cross but a torture stake.

Another difficulty is the phrase "historical disputes". The word "historical" brings to mind disputes that existed long before the century and a half since the first claim that the shape of that particular "cross" was that of a stake. (I haven't at this moment checked the date of the first such claim.) All older descriptions of the shape of the "cross" of Jesus, in particular those of the first century or two after his execution, present it as cross-shaped, not as a single upright. It is an on-going dispute, not a historical one. And there is no reason to refer to it as "disputes" (plural).

The previous title was unwieldy but unambiguous. How about "Shape of the gibbet of Jesus" as a shorter alternative. On the whole I somewhat prefer the previous title, but I would not object to this alternative. Lima ( talk) 08:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The only dispute is about whether that particular gibbet had a crossbar or not. The difference between the T and the + shape (nobody suggests it was shaped like a lower-case t) is only a matter of the height of the crossbar, and all those who believe there was a crossbar attach little or no importance to that difference. Nobody is disputing that question. On the other hand, the question whether there was or was not a crossbar is disputed, and hotly disputed. It is the only dispute about the matter. Lima ( talk) 13:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Perfectly fine by me. Lima ( talk) 14:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for having rushed my next-to-last response, without having had time to digest what you wrote on my Talk page. I see that by "t" you meant the shape of a Latin cross, with the crossbar near the top but not at the top as in an upper-case "T", and that you mentioned also the saltire form (X). While crosses for execution seem to have been sometimes in saltire form, nobody has suggested that the particular "cross" we are talking about was in this shape. Sorry for not having waited until later rather than rushing my reply. Lima ( talk) 15:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

DS, thanks for your encouragement on the Grube article. It's the first article I've ever done for wikipedia, and Grube is also quite happy with it. I'm sure he & his wife will be delighted to hear you approve! Soon I'll be adding a photo his wife took; I'm using Isaac Stern's entry as a model for how to do this. Tpennello ( talk) 09:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

From the edit log on the page, Allen Kay, it looks like you had some form of administrator authority over that particular bibliography. I'm new to this; is it appropriate for me to remove the article issues tag myself? ( KMwikiwork ( talk) 21:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for your help/guidance. Do you know of someone that is in the mood? ( KMwikiwork ( talk) 23:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC))

Chris has proposed a topic ban and has asked for comment. It would be wrong to close it down now. J was quite happy to open it when he thought he could cause me a problem. Now that people are commenting on him, he wants it to close.

Lots of people have tried to negotiate for him over the last three years, Dragon. Nothing changes. SlimVirgin 15:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Where did you ask him to close the discussion, as a matter of interest, and how did you come to be involved? The reason I ask is that J has a history of going offwiki to try to get different parties involved (as mentors, advisers etc), then effectively uses them as shields to stop himself from being sanctioned, which is why the problems have continued for so long. SlimVirgin 15:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I'm guessing you were canvassed off-wiki by Jaakobou to come to his defense? He does this every time he makes or is facing a complaint regarding behaviour. Its awfully sad to see well-meaning admins get roped into doing mediation for him and only puts off what is needed: some concrete action to put an end to his tendentious and disruptive behaviours. Tiamut ^talk 15:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Dragonfly, re your note on my talk page, if it's difficult to format, perhaps you could email instead it to the participants of the AN thread. SlimVirgin 18:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing access to the log of your conversation with Jaakobou and for answering my question at WP:AN. On a much more personal note, I'm deeply sorry for the loss of your loved one. In Arabic, following hearing news of someone's death, we always say Allah yirhamha ("May God have mercy on her"). So may that be the case (whether you believe in a God, a universal loving spirit, or life force, or whatever). Take care of yourself. Tiamut ^talk 19:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Thank you for sharing your your thoughts and feelings. I was deeply touched by your words. Tiamut ^talk 09:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to echo Tiamut's thoughts and send you my deepest sympathies. It feels somewhat trivial to be discussing this other issue when you have that going on in your life. SlimVirgin 19:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Same here, your post was deeply moving and I hope for you all the best. Unomi ( talk) 20:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Why did you delete my hidden page? The edit summary says you were trying to make it more secret, so which page did you make? Also, before deleting one of my subpages, please tell me. When I first created that page, it took me hours. -- Ha dg er 20:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Please answer this question. -- Ha dg er 20:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw you make a recent edit, so can you please answer me? You don't have to answer me right now, I was just making sure you didn't forget. -- Ha dg er 05:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, DragonflySixtyseven. When I saw you'd unblocked Pickbothmanlol, I was shocked. I agree that most of his edits have been in good faith, but frankly they have often displayed pure incompetence and ended up being disruptive. After a lengthy career as a sockmaster, Pickbothmanlol was unblocked as a sign of good faith in November. His bizarre and incompetent edits led to his being blocked again by EyeSerene after this ANI discussion. As you can see from his talk page, his unblock requests were repeatedly declined, and for good reason.

Therefore, I ask that you reconsider your decision to unblock this user so soon after he was blocked, especially given the fact that his contributions show that he's back to some of his old ways. Thanks, A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 00:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to support Willoughby's request that you reeconsider your unblock of Pick. In addition to the sock-puppetry issues, there are real WP:COMPETENCE questions about this editor. Crafty ( talk) 21:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an Administrator, I don't have the power to delete it. Lucas Duke ( talk) 22:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, DragonflySixtyseven. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a user you unblocked. The thread is User:Pickbothmanlol. Thank you. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 02:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I was looking for Allen Cutler, the actor, info, and I found that you redirected the wiki to Allan Cutler. I don't understand why, because Allen is "famous", maybe not the best actor in the world or the most prolific, but he has appeared in many films and series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.73.56.220 ( talk) 07:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we never had an article on Allen Cutler the actor. We had an article on Allan Cutler the bureaucrat, but it was misspelled so I fixed it. We could have an article on Allen Cutler the actor if someone wants to write it, but nobody's written it yet. DS ( talk) 12:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me the statute of autoreviewer, and for your appreciated comment on my work‎ ("user has created lots and lots of valid articles"). I'll try to keep the pace :-) -- Pylambert ( talk) 23:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

why did you delete lifeshape?--RIVER 21:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rio44 ( talk • contribs)

Because it was entirely copied off some external site, and that's not allowed. DS ( talk) 22:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

could you please re write the article. thanks for at least responding--RIVER 21:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Could, but won't. Don't have to, not my responsibility, etc etc. Someone else can write it. You can write it. But if you do, don't copy it word-for-word from some other site. DS ( talk) 21:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

i don't even know what life shape is I guess I'll have to ask trudy next time I see her. (Mr. Cathy is my foster grandpa) (i am in the winshape foster program) I see the cathys quite often. please respond to this in some way i really enjoy talking on wikipedia...--RIVER 13:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rio44 ( talk • contribs)

thanks for restoring lifeshape u are awesome Know of any good userboxes?--RIVER 22:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rio44 ( talk • contribs)

That is a question that is almost inherently unanswerable in this world of handles. You haven't tod me using this handle, so the only way I could definitively answer is if no one had ever told me how much they liked The Factor, in which case I could confidently say "No! For you exist, and thus are not a member of a null set!" But I am pleased to say that the set is not null, that some folks have told me how much they like it, even people for whom the quantity has not been "not at all". So my answer to this is fuzzy... but thanks for asking, and however much it was that you liked it, thank you for taking the time to read it!

 -- 
Nat Gertler (
talk) 23:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC) , answerer of rhetorical questions

Hi,

You inadvertently entered an error on the DYK list. You altered my hook to say

... that, during the territorial era of Minnesota in the U.S., Native Americans were frequently denied the right to vote based on whether or not they wore trousers to the polling station?

This is not supported by the sources. It may or may not be true but even if it is true this is original research. I have not explicitly read that a Native American was actually denied the right to vote for refusing to wear trousers though it is likely that is what happened. Regardless, that is not a point made in the article. The hook is supposed to reflect the article itself.

Can you fix this ASAP?

Thanks.

-- Mcorazao ( talk) 17:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. For what it's worth everybody knows that natives in the U.S. were disenfranchised. What's interesting is that the culture was so accepting that they actually ignored the fact that these people were not regarded as citizens in most other respects and let them vote. -- Mcorazao ( talk) 17:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be mean, it's just that why? ( 98.231.153.11 ( talk) 22:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)) or RealityShowsRCool

Same reason I deleted Hadger's (read the explanation on his talk page). I apologize if you're upset, but they're really not appropriate. DS ( talk) 22:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for autoreviewer. Ironically, I was thinking of asking for this right but 1) I was near the minimum for the article count, and 2) I don't plan on making a lot of new articles from scratch in the coming weeks. I will be likely be putting this to good use in the coming year though.

FWIW, most of my new articles were in a 1-month period in 2007 when I was helping clear the WP:Articles for creation backlog, for which I got myself some bling. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 22:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, never having posted on Wikipeadia I hope that this is the right place...

Am I right in thinking you originated the page on Claude Dansey? In WWII he was my father's boss. I am interested in your statement that everyone got to hate him as my father never said anything like that and the women loved him despite what he said behind their backs. It is only recently, while researching my father's life, that I have come on unpublished memoirs showing just how vile he was and would be most interested to know your much earlier source. CC 87.113.128.19 ( talk) 15:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is kind of the right place. Yes, I originated that page (after seeing a casual reference to Dansey in Charlie Stross's The Atrocity Archives and wondering who he was). However, I am not the only contributor to that article; if you consult the article history in further detail, you will notice that the information I provided is considerably less emotional. DS ( talk) 15:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and for adding the heading which I realised too late I had not done

I did not add to his list of aliases in the entry - my father [who had quite a few] said CD had so many often he could not remember which he had given to who! My father first met him as 'Mr Mansfield'. As for emotional, if you could see the primary sources [or even the published accounts of people in MI9] you would not consider anything in his entry as emotional! One person who knew him well wrote in an unpublished mss: 'Dansey is one of the very few people I have met who seems to me to have been truly wicked: an extraordinary man, impossible to understand. He seems to be consumed by hate, of everything and everybody.'

Apart from going thro each edit and messaging the contributors, is there any way of finding the sources used - for instance no one gives a date for his Legion d'honneur. From an undated mss letter to M-M Fourcade - who has a short entry in the French Wiki - I think he got it in December 1944; there is no date even in his 1984 biography, Colonel Z.

Actually I'd like to expand her entry as she was my God-mother and my father's best agent, but I don't think I dare mess with the wiki... 87.113.128.19 ( talk) 16:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid "going through each edit and messaging the contributors" pretty much is the only real option. You may be able to speed things up somewhat by using the "compare revisions" feature - just keep clicking 'next edit' and you'll easily find who added material and who just polished sentences. Incidentally, those "unpublished manuscripts" may be a bit of a problem as per our policies on original research. It's not that I'm calling their reliability into question; rather, it's that allowing the use of such material sets a precedent with many possible unpleasant consequences. Would it be at all feasible for you to publish this material first? DS ( talk) 17:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought you might say something like that - the unpublished material is the autobiography of a senior British diplomat who like so many of them did time in MI6 which only occupies quite a small part of the mss. They were never intended for publication, and on his death were deposited in the library of a major university where I was researching and stumbled on them by chance. Copyright on the document rests with his daughter, but I guess permission is not needed in any jurisdiction to quote a sentence from hundreds of pages. 87.113.128.19 ( talk) 17:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for moving my draft article, Fractionation Research, Inc. to the main space. I appreciate your help and your favorable comment. I've edited the title to include Inc., since I think this makes the page content more specific. ChemE50 ( talk) 19:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, apparently I can't edit the article title. I know Wikipedia discourages changing the title, but I still think it would be useful, per the reason I give above. Is making the change still feasible? ChemE50 ( talk) 19:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to thank you for being most kind and polite in informing me of my mistakes. I did not mean to cause any harm or to break any rules. I was merely trying to grant access to my ideas to a wider range of my close personal friends. I will immediately back-up and remove all unwanted material that I may have posted.

Once again, thank you for giving me fair warning.

- Sage Idle —Preceding unsigned comment added by SageIdle ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that I have everything. You may proceed to delete all of my current sub-pages at you own leisure.

Thanks again,

- SageIdle ( talk • contribs) 18 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 18:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Dragonfly -- HI! I have no idea where your "talk page" is (no tabs on top), WIKI is way too complicated for us dumb folks.

I really need to see the "Quality Assurance in Education" page that you deleted. Please send it to me at gmcghee-at-sign-aya.yale.edu. Thanks. Sorry to hear of your loss. Merry Christmas to you! 66.32.132.219 ( talk) 17:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It said thet U deletd my hidden page and made it more secret. Where did u put it. PS - Please reeply on my talk page -- Total drama man ^{LET'S GO NY RANGERS!} 22:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE ANSWER -- Total drama man ^{LET'S GO NY RANGERS!} 22:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

so if any admins find my hidden page, can u tell me -- Total drama man ^{LET'S GO NY RANGERS!} 02:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Recently, you deleted my user subpage: User: Brambleclawx/List of ThunderClan cats (Warriors). Now, being still somewhat unfamiliar with deletion policies, I'm not sure if that's allowed, but I didn't really mind. The thing is, it was a page I used to work on an article that is now in the mainspace. Anyways, feel free to delete User:Brambleclawx/List of RiverClan cats (Warriors), User:Brambleclawx/List of WindClan cats (Warriors), User:Brambleclawx/List of ShadowClan cats (Warriors), User:Brambleclawx/List of SkyClan cats (Warriors), User:Brambleclawx/List of Characters outside Clans (Warriors), and User:Brambleclawx/List of cats in the Tribe of Rushing Water and Ancient cats (Warriors) as well, if you feel they also fit under whatever reason you deleted the first redirect for.

Thanks, Bramble claw x 03:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi DragonflySixtyseven,

I can't delete an article again; this time it's 2009 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game. No doubt it's because it also has an "&" in the name. Would you mind deleting it, and explaining how you did it? Thanks, Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That's very odd. Several people tried to delete this article and the previous, without success. If you don't mind sharing, what browser do you use? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you hit an error message like this? "&" is banned from URLs and some deletion link or script likes to encode it. At least that's my guess. :-) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 06:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. This has been a difficult year for you, but I wish you peace and contentment in 2010. In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky. Best, Risker ( talk) 02:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Greetings, I saw that you deleted this article as "unverifiable." Yet, I deprodded this article and added one cite already (there are more) about 24 hours ago, so I would have expected this would go to AfD if someone disagreed? I'd suggest that route if you're amenable. Someone may actually come up with some better sourcing, I think its possible.-- Milowent ( talk) 01:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your patience and helpful advice you gave to an unexperienced editor (me) in how to deal with the darkest sides of WP. Thanks! Cyclopia talk 16:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Who gave you the right ThisguyYEAH Oh wait... It doesn't exist! LEAVE A RESPONSE HERE! —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC).