User talk:Dethme0w/archive/AllBefore2007Nov14

Welcome!

Hello, Dethme0w/archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  Red Director 03:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created, Green box (Phreaking), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's Right for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Green Box

Hello, I wanted to let you know that your article is being considered for speedy deletion because it is a very short article providing little or no context. Since you said that you are still working on improving it, here are some suggestions for stopping the deletion process. First, you need to add the {{hangon}} tag above the speedy deletion tag, but do not remove the speedy deletion tag itself. Then, on the article talk page, you will need to give your reasoning, such as that you are improving the article (or you already have). Here are some quick suggestions for improving the article:

• Add more information and history, such as how the technique works and who created it etc.
• Back up the information with Reliable Sources.

Unfortunately, right now, the article does not meet the guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia, but I do not doubt that you can improve the article.

One last point, your message here was a bit snippy in my opinion, so please see WP:CIV for some guidelines about positively interacting with other wikipedians in the future.

If you have any questions, please feel free to update your note on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing! Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 00:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not use a bot, I tag all articles by hand. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 00:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

phenomenon of pyramids

It is other thing. --Shatilov Konstantin 08:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not understood the reasons on which my offer of article you have not arranged this time?--Shatilov Konstantin 16:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

Please see the comment that I left on my talk page, in response to your comment you left me. If you wish to talk more about this, then please leave the conversation on my talk page. Thank you. 166.129.50.28 03:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Your actions

Hello. You keep reverting an edit i'm making claiming its vandalism. Please see my talk page user:NAACATS and read my response. I am not trying to vandalize a page, but I am trying to correct an article that does not meet wiki standards. —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone who may be reading this, blanking an established page with 63 references and redirecting it to a page about an organization which espouses a strong POV is NOT the correct way to correct an article which one perceives to not meet wiki standards. A lot of different users contributed to Health effects of tobacco smoking and disagreement with them does not give one the right to undo all their work. -- Dethme0w 19:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice work

Nice work on patrolling new pages! I like to congradulate people when they get to speedying them before me ;) -Domthedude001 20:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No prob!

I was keeping an eye on that particular user anyway. Cheers! --Endless Dan 12:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In the hacker spirit...

Check this out... I've had a few unremarkable vandalism hits on my userpage, but some anonymous git stuck this sneaky flame here on my talk page... you have to mouse over the words to see the hidden message! Anyone got any more cool/subversive wikipedia hacks?

== hey man ==

hey man good job keeping wikipedia free of spam --75.100.7.138 06:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

-- Dethme0w 02:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

LMFAO. Woowwww... ~Zhengman777, 24 October 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 20:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion:

Excuse me just because my username is Fabrice Wilmann my real name is actually Stephen Sacrouge. I only chose that username becuase of his inspring work. And Fabrice Wilmann told me that he already has a contract with Bloomsbury. They've read his novel and think that it will be highly marketable after some minor corrections. So i beg u to put the article back on the site please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrice Wilmann (talk • contribs) 07:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see Fabrice Willman in [this list of Bloomsbury authors]. If I did, I'd take it all back. Sorry it didn't work out the way you wanted. -- Dethme0w 07:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Joaquin Martinez

The lengthy diatribe and ensuing debate with Joaquin has been archived here.

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You know you've done a good job when you find yourself at arbitration because of it. Don't let it bother you - you do an outstanding job. Keep up the good work! B 15:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooo, shiny! Thanks! Dethme0w 16:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop accusing Kambo

stop saying that Kambo is sockpuppeting. u hav absolutely no basis for this argument. sure, me jordan and mitchell made accounts on Kambo's computer, but that's not the same thing as sockpuppeting at all. sockpuppeting is only when its the same person, but we're different people. so y do u keep trying to say that Kambo is a sockpuppeter? that's not fair at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrutusTheLiberator (talk • contribs) 03:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

When a user recruits other people into Wikipedia for the sole purpose of creating the illusion of support that does not exist, those people are called meatpuppets. Meatpuppets are treated the same as sockpuppets. That's a blockable offense. You are stacking a vote and undermining democracy. Dethme0w 03:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"illusion of support that does not exist"? on the contrary, we all support Kambo wholeheartedly, so we are not "meatpuppeters." we have all read the article and genuinely agree that it should be keptBrutusTheLiberator 11:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Brainwave Attunement

I think the above article may have some merit, so I've replaced the speedy tag with cleanup ones. Feel free to AfD it if you want. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 23:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD done, and also with Pulsatory Resonation. Dethme0w 07:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

re: Anal sex

I dont see it in the lead section. Please give me a better reason why you made the revert. And yes i did it in good faith. kawaputra^torque 20:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I'll accept for now. Maybe the words i used sounded negative. I just thought the fact that anal sex is illegal in some countries is something significant enough to be included in the lead. kawaputra^torque 05:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The Editing of a Talk Page

I replied to your comment btw. Right, I've learned my lesson and I'm sorry. Don't get me wrong. I'm not a guy that goes around wanting to vandalize pages that have been tediously worked on. In fact, I constantly make sure that my high school's wikipedia page is in top shape. Westlake High School (Ohio). I added the whole Academic Section and the student racial makeup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhengman777 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh ****! I misinterpreted your statement when you said 'This was supposed to be a vandalism test?' I thought you meant the previous vandalism...which was a test. My most recent post to Chemicalrubber was a post in which I apologize to him, and was NOT a vandalism test nor actual vandalism. So you would kindly put my post back on Chemicalrubber's talk page? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhengman777 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to my user page

Thanks for the quick restoration of normality. Much obliged. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

AN APPEAL TO REASON BEFORE ARBITRATION - UNOI

I have placed an appeal to reason before arbitration category on my discussion page with the evidence to support unfactual editing by you and others. I would like your opinion on the facts before we take this further.

Initiated by Useruser1x at 15:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Useruser1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Michaelbusch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Masonuc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Flyguy649 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Thanks for the note on my talk page but I will not be participating further in the article. I think that you really need to rethink what you are doing here. Your edits have the appearance of advertising and they espouse a point of view, two things we do not allow on Wikipedia no matter how "factual" you think your edits are. If you continue making edits of this kind, you could find yourself blocked - and then unable to further edit the article at all. Dethme0w 16:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have since edited my version of the article to remove the appearance of advertising or the appearance of espousing a point of view. My contention is the non-factual content used to replace the article. There are out-right un-truths in the you all's edit. That is what I am bringing to your attention. I did an investigation on the united nation of islam for a research paper and what I have seen from you all's edits; you all have little to no knowledge of the subject matter. I was hoping that we could refine what I wrote as opposed to replacing it with non-factual content. That may be an ambitious expectation and that is why I removed the concerns myself. If the concern for advertisement is still there after may last edit, I would like to know what it is. I will post this to the UNOI discussion page so as to maintain a continuous record of our attempts at resolution. Thank you for your response. Useruser1x 18:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

THEN WHY IS IT CALLED A USER TALK PAGE?

i dont see why i cant talk on my own usertalk page

I wasn't talking about that. You posted a message here on my talk page because I proposed deletion of an encyclopedia article (NOT a talk page) whose title was the same as your username, which contained only "Helllooooooo...". That qualified for speedy deletion, and an admin agreed and deleted it. Case closed. You don't get to go off on me for it. Stop it now or you will be blocked for violating WP:CIVIL.

kk sry for the inconvenience i understand now--Pyro2501 16:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As stated...

Per wikipedia policy we are required to give proper citations otherwise the information may be removed. I'm glad you put the mS and Ms back however those articles where lacking references. Hence, instead of starting an edit war and reverting your changes on the afformentioned wikipedia policy, I decided to be so so kind enought to find the proper citation/reference. ex.:

• Prentiss, Barry. "MD Abbreviations by Abbreviation" _SLAC_. 25-02-1999, SLAC Mechanical Design Department, 09-11-2007. Note: Ms = Millisecond, mS = Millisiemens.

Furthermore, per my last edit comment "references. PLEASE PLEASE please... help improve this article with more references. This is only a patch which references MS and allows us to keep the term in MS (disambiguation))." Thank you. Hope it all works out. --CyclePat 06:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Two things wrong with this, first the article is a disambiguation page, its sole purpose is to hook people up with what they are looking for, not to be an article in its own right. So citations are neither needed nor appropriate there. Second, the three I untagged were all abbreviations that are in extremely common usage and which don't really require references anyway. I left all the others you tagged alone. Dethme0w 07:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, sorry if the tone in my last message was a little abrupt. Thank you for your reply. I've taken your advice and concern into consideration and I believe we are in agreement. The postal code and SI unit where left in tact. (luckily it was easy to find a reference for SI). Anyways, I believe I have also answered your question in regards to tagging on a disambiguation page... on the talk:MS (disambiguation)#Citations page. Thank you again it's a pleasure working with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyclePat (talk • contribs) 05:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Warning! Breach of WP:OR. Violation within EgyptAir

In response to your recent removal of "citation required" in the article EgyptAir. This article is in violation of WP:OR. This article may have some of it information deleted without further notice. WP:OR is a wikipedian policy which works in conjuctions with WP:V. All Encyclopedic content must be verifiable (as also stated just above ever edit summary). The Table within this article makes reference IATA code of EgyptAir being "MS". However it does not provide sufficience reference to investigate this finding. There is a link to IATA however, further investigation into this self referencing wikipedia link does not provide any information or a corelation with the term MS. As per wikipedian policy, aggreed upon by general concensus, this information must be removed. I have previously given this article a warning by adding {{fact}}, however this was removed. Consider this your final warning to provide reliable sources. --CyclePat 21:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

EgyptAir's IATA code IS NOT original research. Your demands that every last iota of information be individually sourced is bordering on disruptive, and I am no longer inclined to assume good faith on your part. Please stop. Dethme0w 21:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Using a warning template is not considered Good faith and I personally see this as a break down in communication trying to intimidate and avoid the issue. Do you or do you not believe that sourced information should be included? There is no need to answer this question, because you have already stated that "every last iota of information be individually sourced is... disruptive." I have seriously looked into this article and can not find any source. If you could please provide some reliable source that would be appreciate. I'm really not familiar with this IATA code and do not know how to get any other information on the subject. As it stands you could have made up this information. I therefore, would direct your attention, one last time towards "WP:V" and the little tab above every edit summar which states "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". God speed in all your future endevour. Since we appear to disagree on this fundemental issue, and you have threaten to block me, I have reported you to the WP:ANI board and will let them deal with this situation. Adieu! --CyclePat 22:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to AGF indefinitely. There comes a point where it is madness to do so (otherwise we wouldn't be allowed to warn/block page blankers and other kinds of vandals). I started off assuming good faith, especially because you had many edits. Other editors patiently explained what was amiss with your edits. It didn't sink in. For a user with as many edits as yours, you sure have a hard time understanding templates. I can't threaten to block you, because I am not an administrator. Such a threat would be empty. And if I were an admin, I would not put myself in a conflict of interest by using admin tools on you anyway, since I am directly involved. All I can do, and all I would do if I were an admin in this case, is put a template on your page warning you that if you persist, an admin *might* block you, if she or he agrees with my assessment of your edits.

You got templated because I thought (and still believe) that your edits were disruptive, and that your behaviour had exhausted my reservoir of AGF. You might ask yourself if posting to the Administrators' Noticeboard is AGF or not. Dethme0w 22:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Slight Tangent -EgyptAir

I have added 9 references to this article. Except for a few puffery pieces and one incident, most of the article was easy to source. I wish editors did do the sourcing when things are added but we are all human and sourcing is a pain in the ass. spryde | talk 02:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing can be, and is, a pain in the ass, and I am the first to admit I was too involved in dealing with whosits above to do the really right thing with that article, and which you have now done. Thanks for some outstanding contributions, and enjoy the nice new pointy thing on your talk page. Dethme0w 02:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if we could push this to GA status. I have never done that before and this looks like it could be a good candidate. spryde | talk 02:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly millisecond

Unfortunatelly, I disagree with you recent removal of citation required within the article millisecond. The idea that we reference the article second is interesting and perhaps a possible solution, however that article does not appear to address the issue. Does ms means millisecond? I've read further into the article of millisecond and I just realized that the entire article requires sources for it's statements. Unfortunatelly, I believe this may stem down to our difference of opinion in regards to WP:V and WP:OR. As you previously said something along the lines of "We don't need citations for every fact." Personnally, I would like to know who said a millisecond is 1000 of a second? If you could help find this source that would be great. Similarly, all the other facts would be good to know the sources. (ie.: abrv. ms is millisecond) --CyclePat 23:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat, you may be missing the point of the fact tag. The tag should be used on controversial and likely to be challenged statements. It does not apply in this case. spryde | talk 23:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The second is the standard SI unit of time. The prefix milli- means one thousandth. The millisecond is a thousandth of a second. It, and its abbreviation ms are used extensively in science, engineering, and even sports. These are undisputed and uncontroversial, and demanding that they be sourced is disruptive. Now, I have seen you going completely off the deep end about everything that is abbreviated by "ms". Meanwhile, while misapplying and grossly overextending guidelines to justify your edits, you ignore obvious real problems in the same articles. Do you have an ex-wife or something whose initials are M.S.? I'm serious here, you're picking on those two letters like the world depends on it, causing great disruption, and leaving real problems to rot. I submit that you are not improving the encyclopedia, and I further submit that you are doing this deliberately. Please stop voluntarily, before you are stopped involuntarily. Dethme0w 23:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mass Spectrometry

Please see my comment as posted on talk:Mass spectrometry. Thank you. --CyclePat 04:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that it is appropriate for a user who reported me on the Administrators' Noticeboard as "unsafe" for discussion to be now posting to my talk page. Do not post to this page again. Dethme0w 04:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)