User talk:Ixfd64/archive 9

The contents of this page were archived on October 11, 2009. They are no longer active and are preserved for historical reasons only. Please add new comments to my current talk page instead. Thanks.

Archives: November 15, 2005 · February 24, 2006 · May 18, 2006 · July 11, 2006 · October 26, 2006 · March 25, 2007 · February 20, 2008 · March 8, 2009 · October 11, 2009 · February 14, 2011 · January 22, 2014 · November 15, 2016 · October 10, 2020 · August 25, 2022 · current · search

You just deleted this for CSD A7, but it's back. The author keeps recreating it. De728631 (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. De728631 (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for letting me know; I've salted the page. --Ixfd64 (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quit deleting my contributions to liver and onions. It is a fact, and it is as well-documented as the rest of the article (which is to say, not at all.) If you don't like the lack of citations, let's delete the whole article instead of discriminating against one person's contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.32.162 (talk • contribs)

• Liver and onions may not be everyone's favorite food, but statements like "Not everyone likes liver and onions" are not encyclopedic. For every type of food, there is someone out in the world who dislikes it. Is it really necessary to add "Not everyone likes cheese" to the article about cheese? --Ixfd64 (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like 216.108.235.72 has multiple IP addresses at his/her disposal including 67.215.232.114 and 85.17.146.194. GoCuse44 (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for letting me know. They have been blocked, by the way. --Ixfd64 (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This person seems to be notable, as Google returns several relevent results. I think it just needs a good editor to start and develop it. KJS77 00:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I did a Google search, and the person in question does seem to be fairly notable. However, the original article wasn't written very well. I wouldn't mind if someone created an improved article about this person. --Ixfd64 (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The high school is known as "Saint John's" or "Saint John's High School." The abbreviation St. is also acceptable but it is more appropriate to spell out the word "Saint" in formal communications.

mg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.31.172 (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for clearing it up. In the future, you should use edit summaries so other users know what you're doing. --Ixfd64 (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL MY EDITS?!? That article is poorly-written and needed some cleaning up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.31.172 (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your edits have been reinstated. --Ixfd64 (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, you could verify this in your sandbox by making test moves (if you haven't already). -- IRP ☎ 01:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

…for this. Deor (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know and I don't want to desagree with you, but i looked at the Anglo-Hellebic dictionary, and actually κίναιδος means gay--BubbleBabis (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I reverted your edit because the term "gay" is often used by vandals. However, I'll assume good faith and reinstate your edit. --Ixfd64 (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're already aware of this, but I just wanted to let you know that protecting the TFA blurbs is a standard practice. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm pretty sure the main page's cascading protection already covers the TFA pages. I just tried editing today's TFA page and it's still protected. --Ixfd64 (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, fair enough. Thanks for clarifying. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that guys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.181.220 (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you erasing my dirty remarks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjwoody7 (talk • contribs)

• I reverted your edits because they were inappropriate. --Ixfd64 (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make test edits to articles, as you did with this edit to Tito Ortiz, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits constitute vandalism, and will be reverted. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My edit was accurate. I've been trying to figure out how to do the edit without you guys coming in and erasing it right away all night.

The edit is as follows: Under the T-Shirts heading, It stated that Tito wore a shirt that said "Guy Mezger is my Bitch" This is not the case. It actually read "GAY Mezger Is my Bitch" (spelling and punctuation exactly as read here). I know it may be construed as offensive, but it is historically accurate. My references are: http://sfuk.tripod.com/interviews_01/tito_interview1.html This is an interview conducted by a MMA organization. Here Tito is quoted speaking about the T-Shirt, and there is also a picture of him wearing the T-Shirt. Further, the same table is on the 2nd last page of his autobiography. This reference is already quoted in the Wikipedia article.

I don't care about the credit, i just want it to read accurately. If you can make the edit for me I would appreciate it.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.130.173.56 (talk • contribs)

• The word "gay" is often used in vandalism, so when users add it to articles without an explanation, it naturally raises a lot of suspicion. In cases like this, it is very important to use edit summaries and cite your sources properly. --Ixfd64 (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why must you delete my posts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.140.152 (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Edits like this are vandalism and not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Ixfd64 (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dawg im just speaking my mind son — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.140.152 (talk • contribs)

I note that due to your recent edit to Template:Schoolblock a word is missing. I think you will find that the last line of the first paragraph should read "...may also be disabled". Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yikes, thanks for catching that! I've fixed it. --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mark it as minor. -- IRP ☎ 19:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not vandalism A Couple of Dicks is the name of the new movie LOOK!!! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1385867/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.208.20 (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. However, you should cite your sources so other editors don't mistake your edits for vandalism. --Ixfd64 (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a new member that is why I am a little annoyed. I have an account it is sonic43 i just bother logging into it sometimes. Also I have made numerous legit posts from this IP in recent months so the fact I was accused of vandalism was a bit discouraging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.208.20 (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I was just wondering why the page for que of Day26 was deleted? :-)thanks..have a great day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.25.104.8 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I deleted the article because I thought I saw a {{db-g11}} tag on it. However, I just checked the last deleted revision and there was no such tag. I probably deleted the wrong page by accident, so I've now restored the article. --Ixfd64 (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my userpage once because it was a "test page", but it's my userpage. Let me test on it. I recreated it later. --Fangoriously (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your user page did not have any content other than links to example.ogg and example.jpg. Since these files are often inserted accidentally by newbies experimenting with the editing toolbar, we generally want as few pages linking to those files as possible. It is also a common practice for administrators to delete user pages that look like test pages, especially if the user has made few or no edits outside their user space. This is because Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. If you would like to use your user space for serious testing, you should do such tests on a subpage of your user space, such as User:Fangoriously/sandbox. --Ixfd64 (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain in the future from adding empty references to articles as you did with Coney Island waterboarding thrill ride. This is disruptive editing. Debresser (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not add those empty references. It was Geo Swan (talk · contribs) who added them. [1] --Ixfd64 (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry. Please accept my apologies. Debresser (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sweat about it. Happy editing! :) --Ixfd64 (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you message at MediaWiki talk:Protectedpagetext. The solution would be to add

.mw-textarea-protected, .ns-8 textarea {
  background: white;
}

(or with another color) to your monobook.css. HTH. —Ms2ger (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It didn't work for me. Thanks, though! :) --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used Celestia 1.4. Using the same distance from the center of the star and the sun, I took a screenshot of each and merged them in Photoshop. The star is rendered in wireframe mode. Then Doom Child increased the brightness. --ElPeski (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's twice today you've beaten me to a vandalism revert. Good show. :-) Cheers, T'Shael MindMeld 23:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• To be completely fair, you've beaten me a few times, too! XD. --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was there and i guarantee you that the aforementioned orgy took place.Mongmongmongong (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You should probably provide a source, then. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting me in my recent RfA, which unfortunately did not pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, -download ׀ sign! 03:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I wrote on the ballistic vest page was not a test. The acronym for The American Ceramic Society is ACerS, not ACS. AsiramQuinn (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• All right, I've restored your edit. However, you should use edit summaries, though. --Ixfd64 (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Wikipedia needs more unsourced speculation than it already has - which is about enough to sink it, in my opinion. The entire "Etymology" section in the Cairo article, after the very first sentence therein, is just that. Despite a fairly thorough discussion of the matter on the Cairo talk page, plenty of of unsourced, unverified information remains there. If you are interested in the Cairo article, perhaps you can work on this part of it. 173.20.132.128 (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, my knowledge of Cairo is not very good, so there isn't much I can do. However, you may want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. --Ixfd64 (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[2] DMacks (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Albany State Marine Reserve, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albany State Marine Reserve. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Killiondude (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ixfd64. You have new messages at Tide rolls's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I deleted the episodes 13 to 22 because didn't have references, and also, any of the episodes are confirmated --CaRaNt11 (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. However, you should use edit summaries next time. --Ixfd64 (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your welcome :). — Ketamino (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say that 2^42642801 is prime. This isn't difficult to disprove. For 2^n-1 to be prime, n must be prime, but 42642801 is divisible by 3 (4+2+6+4+2+8+0+1=27.) Georgia guy (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, that was a typo. I meant to type "42643801." --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Please, think about it for just a moment. This is not about "deletionism versus inclusionism" or anything of the sort. It's a simple question of organizing sourced material, and her notability stems solely from her marriage to Patrick Swayze. At least as of today, it doesn't look like there's going to be enough material to form so much as a half-decent stub. Why not just merge that info where it belongs, and present the relevant info in their respective context? Or did you actually look at what you reverted?

Regarding your (templated?) message, I have always liked the spirit of Wikipedia:Be bold. First, do no harm, and if you do something wrong, don't worry, someone will revert. You see, reverting (at this state) is a statement of your opinion. Ok, so you believe what little info is available about Niemi should be arranged in its own article. I wholeheartedly disagree.

In the interest of the ongoing exchange, I merely ask you to not level unfounded suspicions of a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia against me. 84.44.140.9 (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I was not accusing you of vandalism. It is definitely good to be bold, but you should make sure your edits do not go against consensus. True, spouses of celebrities are generally not notable enough for their own articles, but there are exceptions. In this case, there are several articles about Lisa Niemi on four other Wikipedias. In scenarios like this, it would probably be better to place a {{mergeto}} tag on the article, and then merge it if there are no objections within a certain amount of time. --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I know the regular dispute resolution route, and have seen it fail too often, mostly because I lost patience and interest, and also am a firm believer that any DR system that rewards filibustering is beyond flawed. Mergeto/-from tags are often ignored, and people who have no idea of how to properly organise knowledge speak out against deletionism or whatever. In such cases, better to try it, wait and see whether there is any resistance, then walk away if there turns out to be any resistence. Works for me, as I spend less time trying to share my thoughts with the next trigger-happy HG player. What people do on other language wikipedias is of little relevance to most decisions here. If other people follow our example of bad habits, does that make them good habits? Incidentally, none of the interwiki entries cite any sources beyond IMDb. And why not split off an article only when it is ready to actually be a stub? Oh well, have it your way. 84.44.140.9 (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that people generally do not read maintenance tags (or talk pages, for that matter) very often. To be completely honest with you, I don't think it's actually a bad idea to "try it, wait and see whether there is any resistance." However, you do have a valid point in regards to the foreign-language entries. I personally do not have any objections to your redirect, so I will tentatively restore it support a merge. Cheers. --Ixfd64 (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. We'll see how the AfD goes (i.e. iff I remember to check back). 84.44.140.9 (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please check back with the AfD. She passes WP:ENT pretty easily. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do. --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Human knot has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphan, No References, Non-Encyclopedic and possibly Non-Notable

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Doniago (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please im begging you help convince a user on this article page Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).Sarey's articleCite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page). it meets the notability in music i don't get it please HELP! (Wheelmade (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Please read my FAQ. Specifically, it says:

Q: Can you save the article about <subject> from getting deleted?

A: Although I am an administrator, I still have to follow the consensus of the community. I cannot force a change "just because I want to."

In other words, I can't just decide that an article should be kept unless there is consensus to keep it. However, you are free to go to the appropriate AfD page and explain why you think the article should be not be deleted. --Ixfd64 (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Whassup?, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whassup?. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Edward130603 (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a happy Birthday message to you, Ixfd64, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

South Bay (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a happy Birthday message to you, Ixfd64, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Vatsan34 (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! --Ixfd64 (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you unprotect Tdeprecated? After I have made all the changes needed through editprotected requests and through Rich Farmbrough. :) And after I cleaned out Category:Pages using deprecated templates, see User:Debresser/My_work_on_Wikipedia#Deprecated_templates. BTW, did you notice Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Template:Tfd_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29. Debresser (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Awhile back you moved Ben & Jerry's flavors to List of Ben & Jerry's flavors, and Retired Ben & Jerry's flavors to List of discontinued Ben & Jerry's flavors. It was recently undone by an editor who referred to his edits as "reversing vandalism". This edit has, for quite some time, owned these articles. Years ago he and I had it out, and I don't really want to start an edit war on this. Should something be done, or should we leave the articles where they are now? I would say maybe take it to WP:RM, but it seems pretty clear that it should be "List of X". — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I may be wrong, but I don't think WP:RM is used for resolving naming disputes. I would recommend bringing this up on the articles' talk pages instead. It may also be a good idea to notify others editors who have made substantial contributions to the articles in question. --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it's just me and him. Or rather, it was; at some point I just stopped fighting with him as he's a pretty big edit warrior. (Self-proclaimed Ben & Jerry's fanatic, or whatever.) You were the one who did the renaming, hence why I came to you first. But if you're okay with leaving it as it is now, then I can live with that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the other user is really a "self-proclaimed Ben & Jerry's fanatic" as you said, then he probably has a conflict of interest. As for the current titles, I am fine with them. --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been nearly two years since our conflict, but his statement on his user page covers his stance pretty well. I remember him repeatedly stating that he emailed the people at Ben & Jerry's with specific questions about names and such. I don't think he's a COI per se, though. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]