User talk:Dionyseus: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:56, 19 August 2006

I sent you no email. As is clear from our discussion on the Topalov discussion page, you seem egregiously irrational and childishly stubborn- no offence intended- so I can't imagine what good it would do to email you. It seems obvious we aren't communicating on the same wavelength. I suggest mediation vis-a-vis the Topalov article. It's far more civilized, and far more productive. Danny Pi 02:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you have sent me two emails, both threatening me with death. I can provide the email address and your ip address to a moderator if it is requested. Dionyseus 02:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veselin Topalov

Hi. I have taken the Veselin Topalov case listed at the Mediation Cabal page. I'm reviewing things now. -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a response in an attempt to mediate the Veselin Topalov case. I hope we can arrive at a mutually agreeable solution. -- Joebeone (Talk) 00:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wii

Its not so much on how the GameCube did as much as Nintendo right now is precieved as kiddy still. This is actually really similar to how they marketed the NES. Video games weren't popular so Nintendo marketed the NES as an entertainment center and made R.O.B. to make the system different then the competition. Either way no one really knows all of Nintendo's reasons for the systems name. P.S. I'm removing the conversation from the Wii talk page because its off topic. Jedi6-(need help?) 04:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported [WolfKeeper's] 3RR violation

I've reported your 3RR violation WP:3RR of the article Elo Rating System. I've attempted mediation, but apparently you are no longer interested in understanding and have decided to call my edits vandalism, which in itself goes against the assume good faith guideline . Dionyseus 03:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through mediation before; and the mediator basically agreed with me; and the other side if anything was acting far more reasonably than you are. If you actually read the assume good faith you are not required to assume good faith after the other party has persistently, and consistently exhibited bad faith. And while you're at it, read NPOV to find out why you're not following the core rules of the wikipedia.WolfKeeper 03:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with NPOV. I would have no problems at all including the two claims if you manage to provide a source for them, that's what I've been asking from you all along, sources for the two claims. Unfortunately you are refusing to provide sources and are assuming bad faith. Dionyseus 03:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately whilst I did give a reference for Hydra being part of a team, you have failed to provide any evidence at all that Hydra played on its own; which seems to be central to your thesis that Hydra on its own can or has beat the best cyborgs and centaurs. Perhaps if I did create an account on some website or other that you indicated, and managed to find the right person I could prove your claim. But for the hard of thinking like you- that's your problem. Given that I have indeed added a reference supporting my point in the paragraph, whilst you haven't done anything, I further easily cite this as further evidence of your lack of good faith. As to the claim for an ELO of 3200, that has never actually been my claim; I've merely been reverting your persistent vandalisms. If you settle down and actually make well founded edits, or even add reasonable POV to the piece then I won't actually touch it.WolfKeeper 04:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hydra being part of the team is not one of the claims in dispute, the claims I am disputing is the claim that Hydra is regularly beaten by centaurs, and the claim that centaurs play at the 3200 rating level. Those are the two claims I am disputing, and unless you can source them they should not be in the article. Dionyseus 04:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, well write it down and add it (appropriately, for example in a different paragraph) to the article. Trying to delete POV you don't agree with is the asshole way out. I thought you said you had read NPOV?????WolfKeeper 04:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Write what? Hydra being a centaur or not in a particular tournament has no relevance to the article. All I'm asking is that you either remove the unsourced claim that Hydra is regularly beaten by centaurs, and also the unsourced claim that centaurs play at the 3200 rating level, or stop reverting my removal of these two unsourced claims. Dionyseus 05:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are not well founded. And, whilst I initially assumed good faith, I've established that you're acting in bad faith. I'm therefore going to continue reverting any further vandalisations you may make of this particular article. I'm also not going to discuss this any further outside of mediation.WolfKeeper 05:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal case on Elo rating system

Hi! I've tried to help on your mediation case at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-04-27_Elo_rating_system. Please take a look. F e tofs ^Hello! 16:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this seems to suggest Zor_champ didn't play alone... Is it just me or Rajlich is contradicting himself badly? F e tofs ^Hello! 23:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, reading the discussion above, it seems you agree that Hydra didn't play alone... So we should settle it then? F e tofs ^Hello! 23:42, 5

May 2006 (UTC)

No I do not agree that Hydra didn't play alone, I believe Hydra played unassisted in the 2006 PAL/CSS Freestyle tournament. The discussion above merely says that I do not think it has any relevance at all. Dionyseus 23:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does. Hydra playing alone would be a plus to the engines, while assisted it would be just another centaur triumph. BTW, are you fine with this? I was bold as the discussion seems to have completely stopped. F e tofs ^Hello! 22:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wii Picture

When a free alternative is available, it must be used, regardless of conveniences Where does it say this?--DivineShadow218 04:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Fair_use Dionyseus 05:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== Image:Wii free.jpg listed for deletion ==

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Wii free.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

DivineShadow218 06:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Sony_Playstation_3_free.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sony_Playstation_3_free.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

I've requested arbitration. You can chime in your POV here: [[1]]Danny Pi 00:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on your user page

There was some vandalism on your user page from the IP 66.30.216.167. I removed it. Steve p 01:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dionyseus 01:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

If I was mistaken. I was under the impression that you were the user who had continued to change it. Perhaps it is best if I just withdraw my statement. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Please accept my apologies. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, apology accepted. Dionyseus 22:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dionyseus

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dionyseus. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dionyseus/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dionyseus/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 10:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Millions

Do you have a source for this edit? [2]. I just want to know if I made a mistake, that's all. Thanks, Ian Manka Talk to me! 05:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt reply! Ian Manka Talk to me! 14:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson

Using the word "comeback" in the section header is ridiculously dishonest semantics. Unless specified otherwise, a "comeback" is most commonly understood to be successful. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 21:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Davis

I don't know why you erased Jefferson Davis's middle name. His middle name is Finis and there is no dispute about that. Davis was the last of the children in his family and they gave him the middle name "Finis" because he was the last one his parents planned on having. Is there a good reason for erasing it? It seems to me that you would want a complete entry and a middle name helps with information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.205.147.96 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks, you're apparently right. [3] [4] You might want to create a username. Dionyseus 04:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Demetrioff

Hello, this matter has already been addressed with another administrator: Fang Aili.

Thank you for your concern. If you have any questions, do not hestitate to contact us at 416-534-7115. Thanks. Wil Everett

Why would you deny people from Canada to have access to researching this individual. He appears on the government of Ontario and Government of Canada registry for active lobbyists. I think this needs to be opened up to a wider discussion. How can that take place. Also, it should be encouraged to review already public information on google and on the government of Ontario Integrity Commission website at: http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Integrity/RegistrationGeneral.nsf/PublicFramesWeb?OpenPage

Also, a number of collegues also have entries in Wikipedia including: Leslie Noble, Deb Hutton, Gerald Caplan, Ian Brodie, Rod Love

Why is this individual singled out? Perhaps he is not in the right category on wikipedia?

Thank you for your help and insight.

Oakville123 01:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been speedy deleted several times for non-notability and fails WP:Bio, I see no reason why it should be restored again. Dionyseus 01:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everywhere Girl

Hi there. Fyi, I've written a response in the afd discussion to the latest developments in the Everywhere Girl affair. (I've never been near the center of an internet fad before!) Bwithh 08:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I posted a comment on her Everywhere Girl blog, it is currently awaiting her approval, but basically my response was quite similar to what you had to say. Dionyseus 08:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mislisted an AfD you voted in

I listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fertility Retreat imperfectly. I should not have included the following nominations within it:

I have now, on advice, left Randine Lewis in the original nomination and broken the other two out. This message is to ensure that you see this and have the opportunity to comment upon the other nominations. I have sent it to you and th eothers who had already commented on the original bundled AfD only.

My apologies for the confusion.

Fiddle Faddle 10:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dionyseus 10:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment

Hi Dionyseus. I noticed that you have marked a few articles for speedy deletion, and you have voted for "Speedy delete" a few times also today in AfD. I just wanted to remind you that Speedies are really for things like absolute nonsense, blank pages, vanity pages, etc, and not for lack of notability. You can read WP:CSD for more info. (you probably already know that). Also, you might want to check out WP:PROD, which provides a better way to delete non-controversial material for lack of notability without going to AfD. Thanks, and happy editing : ) AdamBiswanger1 13:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSD tagging of non-notable articles

Please note that CSD A7 is for pages which assert no notability about their subjects. That may not mean they are non-notable.

If all the article says is "<X> is a professor from Germany," it would be CSD A7 material. But if the article also mentions "<X> is the inventor of device <Y> and has been interviewed by The New York Times and Time Magazine," even if no URLs was given for the claim of being interviewed, the mention of multiple interviews would be an assertion of notability along WP:BIO lines and exclude the article from CSD A7. Likewise for a band article that states "Their songs charted at #7 in the UK" - even if no URL is given and the claim is eventually found to be false, it constitutes an assertion of notability along WP:MUSIC lines, and article is exempt from A7.

Lastly, please do not link CSD A7 with the Google test, which is not foolproof and has its deficiencies. Regular deletions via AfD can take care of our bandcruft and bio-cruft decently. --Kimchi.sg 13:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation of CSD A7. Dionyseus 14:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holland Landing Public School

Hi, you voted to delete Holland Landing Public School, and one of the reasons that the nominator gave and that you agreed with that the article was of a rather low quality. I've made some improvements to the article, so I'd appreciate it if you'd take another look at the article and perhaps change your vote if you feel that you could. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 22:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me. Dionyseus 23:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everywhere Girl

Just want to say thanks for your work on the Everywhere girl page. Noticed in your profile you're 23 from MA. I'm 22 from CT. --TastyHiHatWork 09:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dionyseus 10:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Thanks for your vote and link on the Blugrass Brewery AfD. I will let the nom stand for a little while longer, and if it gets a couple of more keep votes withdraw it. Viridae ^Talk 00:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Dionyseus 00:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation article

Yes, it has been discussed before on the PS3 page and unlike what you said at that discussion page, the consensus was to remove the Japanese...Mackan 02:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first vote ended 4-3, one vote higher doesn't qualify as concensus, and the Japanese secondary name was never removed. And it looks like this time the vote is 5-2 in favor of keeping it. The Playstation 2 article has had the Japanese secondary name since January of 2004,[5] and no one has ever been bothered by it. All of a sudden you are all up in arms about it for the Playstation 3 article. I have no idea why you're so up in arms about such a trivial matter, nevertheless I'm willing to defend the Japanese secondary name for as long as it takes. Dionyseus 03:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This vote doesn't count as proper procedure wasn't followed (which is the reason I haven't cast my vote). See Wikipedia:Straw polls. No, I shouldn't have used the word consensus, that was mistaken (but you shouldn't have said there was "overwhelming support for the Japanese name"). I think your comment "I'm willing to defend the Japanese secondary name for as long as it takes" shows of a lack of understanding of basic Wikipedia principles. You seem to have made up your mind without listening to my arguments, and unwilling to listen to any further argumentation. Yes, it is a rather trivial matter and I didn't intend to start an argument about it, that's why I at first just removed the katakana. But if it's gonna be an argument it should be a fair one and I'm clearly stating why the katakana doesn't belong in the article. Mackan 03:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your arguments and I believe they are incorrect. Both votes have shown that your argument has no concensus. The Playstation 2 article has had the katakana name since January 2004. [6]I think your removal of the katakana from the Playstation article, [7] and your removal of the katakana from the Nintendo Gamecube article, [8] were erroneous because you claim to have reached concensus when in fact it did not. If you refuse to abide by the concensus then we clearly should request a mediation case. Dionyseus 03:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior is starting to come off as infecting when you revert my changes to PS2 and Gamecube and especially when you say "The concensus is 5-2 in favor of keeping the secondary Japanese name in the Playstation 3 article. Do not delete the name until a decision is made)". First of all, as I've already told you and stated more than once on the PS3 talk page, the straw poll is not valid (and even if had been a valid straw poll, polls are never binding, see Wikipedia: Straw polls). Secondly, if you are unbiased why would you then not complain about user:Havok reverting the PS3 page after stating he wouldn't revert it but argue about it. Mackan 03:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm protecting those pages from blanking of the Japanese secondary name. As for Havok, take a look at your user page, he gave a perfectly valid reason for placing the Japanese secondary name back into the article. Dionyseus 03:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said in my reverts we had reached consensus, I merely meant that my reasons for removing the name could be found in more detail at the PS3 talk page. You believe my arguments are incorrect but you won't specify why! I think you are wasting people's time if you can't even argue about a simple thing like if the katakana should be included or not without requesting meditation. Please address my arguments at the PS3 talk page. Also there is no consensus reached right now so how could I refuse it? Especially when I haven't touched the article in question since Havok took it up on the talk page.Mackan 03:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already given many reasons why the katakana name should not be removed. For example, one of your arguments is that the katakana name takes up too much space. That's clearly false and no one has ever complained about it in the Playstation 2 article and that name has been there since January 2004. [9] The only person who has complained about it taking up too much space is you for the Playstation 3 article. Dionyseus 04:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your 2 arguments are "It's a Japanese console" without any further reasoning and the 2nd one "it's short" (just as frank). You seem to have little knowledge of the Japanese language, not a crime in itself but you won't listen to somebody who obviously posseses more knowledge on the subject than you. Yes, it's a Japanese product but romaji, roman letters such as used in the name "PLAYSTATION 3" are also a part of the Japanese language. You seem to have a misguided conception that only katakana, hiragana and kanji should be regarded as Japanese, when in fact, the official name in Japan as well as elsewhere is the latin lettering "PLAYSTATION 3". Also, I'm not the only one who has addressed the fact that it's taking up space, see the old vote where one user referred to it as "verbal pollution".Mackan 04:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well first you claimed that I never gave any reason to support the inclusion of the name, and now you admit that I give two reasons. Well now you can add another reason, Sony of Japan sometimes uses the katanaka to refer to the Playstation 3. [10] Dionyseus 04:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously trying to play some "war of words" with me, and you keep on lying, which you've done since your first post on the current dispute. I never said you didn't give any reasons for inclusion, I said you didn't respond to my arguments, which you still haven't. To be frank, Wikipedia would be better off without people like you who have no interest in an honest debate. I shall have no further dealings with you, although I think it's to the detriment of the PS3, PS2 etc articles I don't have any desire to waste more time dealing with people like you. Mackan 17:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Havok (T/C/c) 22:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye

Then please stop your rampant agenda against any news source you do not personally like. Calling one of the most respected technology news sources a blog has no bearing in fact and only proves that nothing you say is to be trusted. Do not attempt to contact me again. And by the way, it's always the trolls, vandals, and POV-pushers who cite WP:AGF, never the legitimate users. jgp (T|C) 01:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you won't have to worry about me getting involved with you anymore. I'm done with you, I'm done with technology articles, and once I'm done with a large project that I've recently started (which will take a while, but it will be 99% of my contributions, and only the small minority interested in Super Sentai will care), I'll be done with Wikipedia. jgp (T|C) 02:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate your personal attacks, and I most certainly don't appreciate you indirectly calling me a troll and vandal. I have alerted the authorities to remedy this situation. Dionyseus 02:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have alerted the authorities? For what? I am sure that jgp is quaking in his boots. I'll go further to say that not only is jgp right about WP:AGF, but I read the deletion discussion for EvGirl and I've found you downright offensive and without intelligence, humility, or humor. To armchair psychoanalyze you, I think you are powerless in real life, so you have become the control freak/bully that you are here. To think that people like you have any power within the Wikipedia, is disheartening at best. Do you drown puppies for fun in your spare time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.1.175.16 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, this guy is the most petty wikipedian I have ever seen.. what is your problem man? Come on, add knowledge to Wiki, not take it away! I have never felt like going away from Wikipedia before but with people like you, I am really thinking about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.113.143.122 (talk • contribs) .

You are somewhat misunderstanding here, as demonstrated by replies and the turn the debate took, the trigger was rather the libellous tone and uncivil attitude. Anonimity isn't a license for uncivility in posts, and this is of especial importance for administrative tasks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.229.207.75 (talk • contribs) .

Hello, "the authorities" speaking. Dionyseus, I've had a little word with Jgp. I think it's a bit sensitive of you to label his posts personal attacks, though. And his point about WP:AGF is a vaild one: it's a bad idea to throw around accusations of violating WP:AGF if you want to make a good impression. Take a look at WP:AAGF, it has some interesting thoughts on the subject. By contrast, User:68.1.175.16, you are out of line. Please don't armchair psychoanalyze people on Wikipedia. I'm serious. "Comment on content, not on the contributor" is the esssence of WP:NPA. The inside of Dionyseus' head, or his real life, aren't your business. Talk about his posts, don't make remarks about him. Seriously. Bishonen | talk 03:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Bishonen. I've been getting attacked by The Inquirer and Everywhere Girl fans because I was the nominator for its deletion. The Inquirer published an article attacking me and Wikipedia in general. [11] Dionyseus 03:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Inquirer

Thanks for the note. I think the Inquirer is irked about your and other people's negative comments about the Inquirer, rather than Everywhere Girl (I had barely heard of the Inquirer before this, so don't have an opinion one way or the other). But it's nothing something they can do much about - they possibly can get WP central administration to authorize the rebuilding of the The Inquirer article (so every negative claim would have to be rigorously sourced), but that's about it. Bwithh 14:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Janis

You seem quite adept at making a reasonable argument. After reading my latest draft of the article, available on the Sharon Janis discussion page, perhaps I could get the benefit of hearing some of your debating skills. If you believe I'm wrong, show something like the belief I do in saving it. User:Headshaker 09:15 15 July 2006

Hi, I'm not familiar with Sharon Janis, but I'll give it a look. Dionyseus 12:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inquirer/Wikiparrots

Just thought you'd like to know that as of time of writing, the Inqurier front page has a large side banner with a picture of a parrot. If you hover your cursor over the banner, the message reads "Wikiparrots are really geniuses", and the banner links to a newspaper article about new research on parrot intelligence which show that the birds are much smarter than previously thought and have intelligences comparable to chimps, dolphins and uh... small children. Very trivial stuff, but I'll take it as a begrudging compliment from the Inquirer, and give them credit that this is a sign that they have a sense of humour about their puffed up claims of "outrage" over Wikipedia/Everywhere Girl etc. Bwithh 18:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah I saw it now, thanks Bwithh. Dionyseus 19:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Dionyseus! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. —Xyra e l _{/ 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)} 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support!

Greetings, Dionyseus. Just a quick note to thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of (67/0/0)! Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have suggestions or requests - either of an admin nature or otherwise! :)

Wknight94 (Talk | contribs) 03:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, keep up the great work. Dionyseus 03:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your RfA support!

		Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA!
		To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u\|t) 06:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Y'know what's really funny? All that and they still haven't told me what's in the half-full glass... :D ~Kylu (u|t) 06:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah ;p You're welcome Kylu. Dionyseus 06:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Misza13's pile!

Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page.
Misza 13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing!

NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated ROT-26 algorithm.
Ability to decipher it indicates a properly functioning optical sensor array.

Parimarjan Negi as second youngest GM

I know of the Chessbase article. Problem is that the date of the last norm is said to be 1 July 2006 [12]. If that is the case, he was 13 years, 4 months (not 3), 22 days. I suspected an honest miscalculation and wanted to provoke someone to verify what date is the correct one.--EvenT 08:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you are correct. Carlsen is therefore the second youngest Grandmaster, Negi is third. Dionyseus

Now it turns out that the age of Magnus Carlsen becoming Grandmaster was one month wrong. Correct is 13 years, 4 months (not 3), 27 days, referring to 26 April 2004 when he won his 3rd GM norm in Dubai.--EvenT 10:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCMST

I attend the school. What I was adding is pure fact. Please allow me to enhance the page since I know what I'm talking about.

Thank you.

Benjamin M. Trueman (1/69.14.43.97 16:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC))^-1[reply]

Hi, you cannot add yourself as a reference. Claims must be verifiable and cannot be sourced by Wikipedians. Dionyseus 16:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred the Undercover Cat

Thanks for the edit. While I agree that all cats should be kept indoors (mine are), I felt that saying as such in the article was inappropriate. Your edit about him "escaping his home" is a perfect compromise, the wording is very smooth and is in keeping with the tone of the article. Thanks again. Rpelham 18:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Rpelham[reply]

Gibril Haddad

I'm not taking offense, Dionyseus, and appreciate your speediness, but when my first edit summary says "Started article, more in a few minutes," you could give me more than 7 minutes before nominating it for deletion. :-) TheronJ 01:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theronj. I did see your note on the edit summary, that's why I did not nominate it for deletion, I prodded it for deletion thus allowing you to provide a valid reason for the inclusion of the article rather than nominating it for deletion automatically. I'm currently reviewing the evidence you have recently added to the article. Dionyseus 02:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Give me a couple days. I agree that notability is a close call -- he's widely cited on the Islamic internet sites, but I'm not familiar enough with them to judge which sites, if any, are reliable or notable. TheronJ

Via Anelli Wall

My english is really bad, so I have problems to explain myself; I had no idea that the Guardian Unlimited interested himself of via Anelli, and I'm very surprised! :-) I still think that the wall does not deserves an article, but I suppose that the article will remain on en.wiki (and on fr.wiki and de.wiki, translated from the same user, I suppose).

Note that there is no article about it in it.wiki, and chatting with others admin (I am an it.wiki admin too) we were quite sure that it is not an important fact; it's really more important the whole via Anelli problem, but I don't believe to be able to change the article myself.

Just don't think that I am trying to delete that article for my political ideas or something similar :-)

Bye, piero tasso 01:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

It is usually consider a bad taste to remove warnings from your talk page. If you believe the warnings are in bad faith, please explain it. Jgp, can you be more specific what edits of Dionisius you consider a violation of WP:NPOV? abakharev 07:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dio removed (sourced) information from The Inquirer that is necessary for NPOV. It concerns a mistake published by the Inquirer: the mistake was made by a source the Inquirer cited, which misquoted its own source. Thus, it wasn't the Inquirer's own mistake. Dio was removing any references to the mistake coming from a source other than the Inquirer, and was reverting any attempt to add it back. There is a very large difference between publishing false information that one made up and being misled by a source: the latter was the case, and Dio has been removing all references to that, leading the page to imply that the former was the case. He has since given up on removing the statements, but he persists in removing the warnings from his talk page. jgp ^T_C 07:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the unencyclopedic sentence I removed: [13]. Jgp then claimed I violated the NPOV policy, and in his edit summary he said he "re-added" the sentence that I removed, but clearly he modified the sentence to be encyclopedic: [14], apparently trying to make it seem as if I had removed an encyclopedic sentence when I did not. Dionyseus 07:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  OK, I think the phrase Dionisius removed was awkward. It is probably worth to explain that the error in publication was a good faith error caused by the Inquirer's source rather than e.g. a bribe from NVDIA or Microsoft, but I see no indications Dionisius removed the phrase to advance a particular point of view. I have removed the warnings from the talk page of Dionisius. In future: Jgp, please assume WP:AGF and Dionisius, avoid removing warnings yourself abakharev 07:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 283: / Line 283: @@
 == Warning ==
-Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view]] policy for editors, which you appear to have violated at [[:The Inquirer]]. In the meantime, please '''[[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|be bold]]''' and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! <!-- Template:NPOV0-n -->  [[User:Jgp|jgp]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jgp|T]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jgp|C]]</sub> 06:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
-Please stop. If you continue to remove legitimate warning messages from your talk page, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. <!-- Template:Wr3 (Third level warning) --> [[User:Jgp|jgp]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jgp|T]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jgp|C]]</sub> 06:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
-[[Image:Stop_hand.svg|left|30px]] This is your '''last warning'''. Removing legitimate warnings from your talk page is considered to be '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption|disruption]]'''. You ''will'' be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia and your talk page will be ''protected'' from editing if you do it again. <!-- Template:Wr4 (final level warning) --> [[User:Jgp|jgp]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jgp|T]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jgp|C]]</sub> 06:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 *It is usually consider a bad taste to remove warnings from your talk page. If you believe the warnings are in bad faith, please explain it. Jgp, can you be more specific what edits of Dionisius you consider a violation of [[WP:NPOV]]? [[User:Alex Bakharev|abakharev]] 07:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 *:Dio removed (sourced) information from [[The Inquirer]] that is necessary for NPOV. It concerns a mistake published by the Inquirer: the mistake was made by a source the Inquirer cited, which misquoted its own source. Thus, it wasn't the Inquirer's own mistake. Dio was removing any references to the mistake coming from a source other than the Inquirer, and was reverting any attempt to add it back. There is a very large difference between publishing false information that one made up and being misled by a source: the latter was the case, and Dio has been removing all references to that, leading the page to imply that the former was the case. He has since given up on removing the statements, but he persists in removing the warnings from his talk page. [[User:Jgp|jgp]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jgp|T]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jgp|C]]</sub> 07:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 **::Here's the unencyclopedic sentence I removed: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Inquirer&diff=70543064&oldid=70534478].  Jgp then claimed I violated the NPOV policy, and in his edit summary he said he "re-added" the sentence that I removed, but clearly he modified the sentence to be encyclopedic: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Inquirer&diff=70545960&oldid=70545154], apparently trying to make it seem as if I had removed an encyclopedic sentence when I did not.  [[User:Dionyseus|Dionyseus]] 07:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
+**:::OK, I think the phrase Dionisius removed was awkward. It is probably worth to explain that the error in publication was a good faith error caused by the Inquirer's source rather than e.g. a bribe from NVDIA or Microsoft, but I see no indications Dionisius removed the phrase to advance a particular point of view. I have removed the warnings from the talk page of Dionisius. In future: Jgp, please assume [[WP:AGF]] and Dionisius, avoid removing warnings yourself [[User:Alex Bakharev|abakharev]] 07:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)