User talk:Deepfriedokra/archived 20131214

New message!

HiDlohcierekim, how to SemiProtect a Wiki page, Can you please help? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSavvy (talk • contribs) 22:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Tripoli for polishing

Hello,

Thanks for your coments about my page Tripoli for polishing. I would like to tell you that Rottestone is known and named as Tripoli, but really it is not Tripoli ( it was said in the page I made). The mineral tripoli has a different nº CAS, diferent structure and chemical composition than Rottenstone. I know what I´m talking about.

The main problem of the mineral Tripoli is that there is not a lot information about it becouse its not a commom mineral and its production is small. For that reason, I find interesting to do a page about it.

Anyway, I will get all the references and information. I will improve the rottenstone page and will do a new page named Tripoli Mineral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.Damborenea (talk • contribs) 10:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Question about new article

Hi Dlohcierekim! I'm crafting an article on Spotware Systems (so far one sentence written). I searched Wiki for Spotware, saw multiple deletions, and assume it was blocked for continuous advertising. I'd like to give the article a shot (I'm in financial analysis and use cTrader often). I'll keep you updated on my progress and questions. Thanks! Kayakner (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

My advice would be to use the Wikipedia:Article wizard to create the article and to have impeccable sourcing. Please read to learn about reliable sources. Someone unconnected with the subject needs to have written enough about the subject to provide content for an encyclopedia article. You can use the template Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL to search for reliable sources. Be very careful to describe how the subject meets notability guidelines. Over focus on features and why the subject is wonderful looks like advertising because that is what you find in advertising. Encyclopedia articles only care about that in passing. Awards, impact on the industry, articles written solely about the subject are more useful than a litany of "you should be this great product because it does all this." The more independent sourcing the better. No independent sourcing means no claim to notability and no justification for an article. You should very carefully read the notability guidelines as well as information about [[WP:V|verifiable information from 3rd party sources not connected with the subject. Dlohcierekim 17:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw your messages. Thanks for the advice. That template is really helpful! I'll be adding some more information from my search results to the article shortly. I'm not positive all the sources will be suitable for Wiki's notability, could you check them out and give me any feedback you have? Kayakner (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Dlohcierekim, I'm not sure if you saw my message. I'm going to move my sandbox. Could you check out the article? Kayakner (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me know if there's any changes I should make. Any feedback is appreciated! Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotware Kayakner (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a good start. Remember, the greater the sourcing, the greater the claim to meeting WP:GNG Dlohcierekim 23:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Quoted you

here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

cool24.92.210.244 (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

thanks. mom had heart attack. consulting hospice. can't focus on much more.24.92.210.244 (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Glen Maney

The article Glen Maney has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The subject is a non-notable comedian and officer of a very small political party. This is a BLP that lacks any third-party sources.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sorry for the template. Bearian (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

thanks, but I think I merely declined the speedy. Don't think he's notable after improvements. don't see how standing for Parliament (maybe) makes him notable24.92.210.244 (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Surya Kavi Pt. Lakhmi Chand may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• surya kavi of Haryanvi Raagni and [[Swang]]. He is also referred as “Shakespeare of Haryana”<ref>{{{cite web |url= |title= Saang fest gets off to majestic start |last1=S.D. Sharma |first1= |last2=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Chess personalities, players, Wikipedia notable sources, GNG

For the record sir, you make an interesting and intelligent point about the conflict between Wikipedia "GNG" rules and the fact that Chess is not covered in the mainstream press, so therefore there are not many traditional sources and citations that a chess player or personality can claim. Can you please educate me a bit more in this conundrum and what do to about it? I recently had an article on a famous chess player not only deleted but savaged by a lynch mobb on here for that very thing. Pardon if this is hard to read as English is not my first language. Valeri Lilov (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

apparently, we will need to establish chess notability guidelines. The GNG reliance is going to cause us to delete articles about subjects that are the top of their sport. for now, the thing to do is argue the point at afd. 19:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC) Dlohcierekim 19:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure we can take the discussion to the AFD if you like. Is there any precedent for establishing field-specific notability guidelines on Wikipedia that are more lenient than General established guidelines? Pardon, is that what you are saying, like more lenient policies for chess? Please let us take this to the AFD discuss, can you begin for this please? Valeri Lilov (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The player you reference is apparently not a grandmaster. The matter has been discussed at AfD and the outcome was delete. The other player's article is at AfD and is notable as a grandmaster. Dlohcierekim 16:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Double redirect

Hello. I thought you might like to know that your protected page User:Dloh/w-a-v is currently listed at Special:DoubleRedirects because the target has moved. Please would you consider changing this redirect to point to the new target Template:Welcome-anon-unconstructive? Thanks! – Wdchk (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Thanks. no longer use the thing so. Dlohcierekim 16:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments on deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/redacted

You wrote in part that you were "not seeing any disparagement". Casting negative aspersions on the subject's choice of sexual partners is not disparagement? Hack (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It was absurd, ridiculous, and stupid. Unbelievable. And the sole purpose of the article was not to disparage. Had it been a salvageable article, it would have been possible to remove the seeing around corners and leaping 100 feet and that other bit of stupidity. Taken as a whole, the purpose was not G10. I think the writer hit a block and just started adding nonsense. Then they gave up for a lack of sourcing. Had the article been entirely negative, ridiculing and belittling the subject-- including that childish nonsense sex stuff, certainly it would have been g10. Perhaps a thin line, but not quite crossed. Dlohcierekim 18:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Deepfriedokra. You have new messages at Hell in a Bucket's talk page.
Message added 02:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Lettik (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

too nice out

it's to pretty out to sit on the computer all day. I'm going out. Dlohcierekim 16:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

sunshine peaking through the tree

Contested deletion

This article: Taipanese People's Republics should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because this article is about a micronation such as the Republic of Molossia, Principality of Sealand and other micronations that has an article on this wiki, this article is a fact not a fantasy fiction proved by websites. I don't think this article should be deleted unless I hear your reason why can't the facts of this micronation be on this article.--Rūku U~ōkā (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No assertion of significance. Not notable. No reliable information from verifiable sources. Read the deletion notice. If you can provide reliable information from reliable sources, we may be able to establish notability. Thanks and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 22:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you please justify the reason

About deletion for the page "Mohan Rakesh"

Why do you think it is inappropriate. This will be the first time in the history that such a performance of Mohan Rakesh's work will be showcased in the New York City. This is a historic moment for the play and should be part of an encyclopedia. You can check the similar edit is available in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakharam_Binder under the "Adaptation and Translations" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DipanjanMADPLAYHOUSE (talk • contribs) 00:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

If you were not obviously affiliated with linked company, I might not think it spamacious. From your tone, I gather that is not your intent. You may have a conflict of interest clouding your judgment. On the other hand, I may be fatigued to the point that my judgment is clouded. I'll ask a knowledgeable random editor to opine. At any rate, we are approaching edit war status if I'm wrong, so I won't revert further. Dlohcierekim 00:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

3rd opinion is it should stay. Sorry for the aggravation. Dlohcierekim 01:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, thx for the comments on my Terrapsychology article. I have added some sources to show that this is not just my field: dozens of people work in it, as indicated in the article. What I wrote does not lean entirely on primary sources. The field has been around for ten years and is taught at several universities. Thank you.--Chalquist (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help. Dlohcierekim 20:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

olatunde olalekan <moved to bottom of page

• dear clerekin,thanks for your immense contribution to wikipedia.the artcle:olatunde olalekan should not be tag for speedy deletion.the article is a stub about a notable biochemist and may not meet the criteria for speedy deletion

ainakan —Preceding undated comment added 22:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

All we need is verifiable info from reliable sources. will be dropping a template on your talk. Dlohcierekim 22:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Your CSD notices

Hello, just wondering if your usual post-speedy deletion notice is an for admin use only notice. I mean, can non-admin users use it? hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 03:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to coach a user whose page has been deleted and finds user:dloh/d useful is welcome to use it. So far as I know, I'm the only one who finds it important. I'd feel honored if others would use it Dlohcierekim 03:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 07:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you look at this?

This has the makings of a sockpuppet farm in progress and an extreme promotional agenda..[[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]]. The User Formerly Known as Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably you should make out a sockpuppet report. I guess WP:UAA wants us to engage the user before reporting and to wait until they edit before dropping WP:AGF. WP:UAA is not my cup of tea. Maybe a mention at WP:AN/I would get a quicker consensus for action. Dlohcierekim 06:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Kalmyk horse

Why did Kalmyk horse get randomly deleted? It was in place yesterday and I saw no prod tag? Could you kindly restore it, or at least userfy it to my talk? Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 19:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

creator blanked, tantamount to WP:CSD#G7. But my policy is to restore if requested, especially if it's another editor. Dlohcierekim 19:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

OOps. they tagged for G7. Well I restored it anyway. Dlohcierekim 19:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The creator hasn't touched the article since June and I've edited it since. It's a stub, but probably worth keep. I mean, we keep other obscure breeds... Montanabw^(talk) 20:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I did not understand the deletion request either. Happy editing. Dlohcierekim 20:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

--Chalquist (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Terrapsychology

Hello, I made edits to the "Terrapsychology" page. If it looks OK can we get the "issues" wording removed from the article? Thx, CC

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Africa Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zulu Nation (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 the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Emily Swallow

There you go:

http://www.tvfanatic.com/2013/11/emily-swallow-upped-to-series-regular-on-the-mentalist/

Best regards,

Jean Beurlet (talk) 09:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. we need the sourcing Dlohcierekim 14:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Southern Brotherhood Militia

Back in August you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Well if I thought it was notable . . . . Did not see WP:42. Anyway, it's a pity they didn't just deprod before someone deleted it. Who knows, hopefully it will prove notable. Thanks for the update. Dlohcierekim 14:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

JohnLockeSwanStation

That was very weird. Are people now attempting to create articles on obscure topics to build up enough credibility that some of their promotional edits get through. At the risk of not assuming good faith, that would be a very logical action if you were getting paid to create articles. (I suppose as long as we catch the promotional edits, and the BLP articles are actually real, it's still a net win for the project, if not a good use of our time). -- Bfigura ^(talk) 01:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Corruption paid editing was foreseen years ago. But the guiding principles remain. There are fewer NPPers and admins than there were, but the new tools we have make it much easier, quicker and thorough. With Special:NewPagesFeed I can see every new page that comes out while I'm patrolling and even from earlier. G11 is always obvious because it always reads bout a corporate about page, mission statement or vision statement. The degree of nausea I experience tells me how G11 it s. Dlohcierekim 02:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, although I was reminded of this xkcd comic. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. LOL> Dlohcierekim 02:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Sebastian Kenneth Gehrig

I am not relevant to the person but I know him from the videos on YouTube since 2008 he not famous but here in San Antonio he goes to my school and I personally don't know him I v only spoke to him once about his edit that all I just want him to have a page so more of our school can know about him and all that info is on his website so I know that's a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skgstudios (talk • contribs) 19:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You know him-- you know him. Your user name suggests a greater than casual relationship and is the name of a company. Wikipedia does not allow company usernames. You will need to choose a username that is unique to you and not connected with an organization. Dlohcierekim

so more of our school can know about him= promotion, which is not permitted regardless of the size of your target audience. On wikipedia, you have world-wide reach. Dlohcierekim 19:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Almost forgot-- at least 3 iteations of the page w/ a name change. It would have been better to seek help before repostng.<sigh /> Dlohcierekim 19:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 02:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Orna Grumberg may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• noted for developing model checking, a method for formally verifying hardware and software designs.{<ref>[http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/1171872/orna-grumberg Microsoft Research

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Web sites

Hi. I just thought you'd like to know that Bandcamp is basically just another knd of sn site. It's a listing site for bands but pretty much the same kind of thing as having your own page on Facebook or a page made and hosted on Wordpress. It's so easy and cheap these days to get one's own TLD and make a dedicated site, even if with limited html you just make a static page. IMO, any band that aspires to professionalism and notability for Wikipeia would at least run to its own website. Hope this helps. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone said they did not even have a band webpage, but they do. The anti-link bot got it w/ the FB link. Don't see any coverage. How do explain that one's twitter account is not RS? Don't know about Itunes and FM.com. Even if RS, not signifocant coverage. Dlohcierekim 13:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Eddit war

Ok, no problem. Thanks for your advice. Deceptobot67 (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I am going to stay away from the article, but did you see this edit: [7]. It's like Rhododendronites is calling in his "boys" for some gang warfare or something. Deceptobot67 (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

so long as he discusses instead of reverting, that's fine with me. Dlohcierekim 20:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Chess.com talk page

Don't think it's really necessary to edit that comment. The poster has so little credibility that a reasonable person would not take it at face value. It was vigorously opposed in the discussion and is clearly a misrepresentation of the source it was referring to. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Isabella Soprano

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Isabella Soprano. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hondo77 (talk • contribs)

I have commented at the DRV. Dlohcierekim 01:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought I did notify the deleting admin but looks like I just notified the admin protecting it (i.e. you). Thanks for the heads up. Hondo77 (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

should old acquaintance be forgot

Vielen Dank. Murry Gutmanstein (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Bitte schon. Dlohcierekim 17:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Deepfriedokra. You have new messages at Master BateZ's talk page.
Message added 13:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Peridon (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)