User talk:Debollweevil

Welcome!

Hello, Debollweevil, 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:

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 someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Nunquam Dormio 07:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hi there! I found my way to your talk page via some of the pages on my watchlist, and I thought I might complement you on your fine observational skills. Concening H.H. Holmes, I noticed that the entire article has been blanked due to a copyright concern. This pains me to no end. Not because I particularily liked that article (I never once laid eyes on it, actually), I just hate to see no article where an article should be. In my opinion, you are the guy to right this wrong! If you have any good print resources, perhaps you could turn it into, at the very least, a stub. Then we will sit back and watch it grow... like an ugly, haphazard step-child; like a crazy kid who eats way to much candy. We will watch it grow into a beautiful article about a scary dude. Or not. But if interested, let me know. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm aware of the copyright concern on that page; I'm thinking it might be taken off soon, though. I wish someone had a copy of the movie available that is in question so that the specific parts could be analyzed and compared to the article. I would be up for helping with certain parts of the article if it does in fact need to be reconstructed (once the admins make a decision), but I also think some people have put hard work into other parts that were likely not plagiarized, and I don't want to see those pieces disappear. I'm prepared to act however needed based on what administrators decide to do with the page!

...Also, I certainly appreciate the compliments! ;) --- Debollweevil (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like "wait and see," at least for a short term is the way to go. Someone has promised to look at the copyright issues. I think the world will be safe until at least next Monday, without an article on H.H. Holmes. After Monday though, if no forward progress has taken place, I'll try to "light a fire" so to speak. There has to be enough material on this guy to write at least a stub article, if not a definitive biography. Good grief, all people have to do is take copyrighted material and put into their own words! It's what historians and biogrphers do!!

As for your direct question to me re: talk page etiquette... Not that this is an issue with you, please always ALWAYS maintain a cool and composed demeanor. That is the crucial thing. Wikipedians have long, long memories, and what we print in these pages seldom ever really goes away. The other thing I want to mention is that most talk page dialogues concerning a topic will take place on the page where the "thread" of the conversation was started. For example, I posted you initailly concerning the Holmes article, so the thread of discussion should properly take place here, although if you felt any urgent need to let any of that discussions various participants (so far you and me, and I suppose Dream Guy) (because thats the page where I discovered the fate of the Holmes article, albeit temporarily) might want to know that further dialogue is now here. Also please add edit summaries before you save. That simple act means so much, to so many!

One more thing to always be mindful of when editing (the greatest online information source the world has ever known), is that its generally acknowleged sub-title goes-"Wikipedia-a.k.a. Unemployed PhD Deathmatch" :-| Hope this answered your question, at least in part. Oh yeah, theres WP:Talk pages. I could have just given you that link, come to think of it. D'oh. Good to have engaged people like yourself on board. I'll be watching here for H.H. Holmes discussions, and on my own page if you have any follow up questions, or suggestions you may care to make. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips! I have an eye on the H. H. Holmes article, and within a day or so we should know how to properly react. Again, it was awesome of you to take the time to explain all that, and it is a pleasure to acquaint myself with you! ---Debollweevil (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected, the article was restored. Still, I plan to contribute some to that article and to many others as well. I am a man of many interests, so if you see any article that you would like assistance with or think I could help improve, be sure to let me know! My subjects of particular interest are social sciences and science/ chemistry, but I am open to researching and learning on basically anything that I find interesting (which includes most things!).

Regards, and I look forward to working with you on projects in the future! ---Debollweevil (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Buckley

Hey man good work on this article. Could you please weigh in as a 3O in the talk page? I really want this info to say but I want it to be well done wiki-style. Best, Speedstyle (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Tone issues"

When I have been doing something for a while, I develop a nose for it, and sometimes when I look at the details, I find that my nose made the wrong judgment. I thought that was what was going on, and apparently I was wrong. Please don't take it the wrong way because I completely did not mean anything bad about you or Snoop God. Speedstyle (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your page about this to make sure you saw it. "Tone issues" was referring to issues in my post, not yours. I appreciate the attitude with which you are approaching this! That's the WikiSpirit! (I made that term up... Unless it's been coined already) ---Debollweevil (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Methadone Cost Removal

I noticed your removal of uncited (and terribly phrased) methadone cost data. Under the Analgesic section, I added quite a few references to it being preferred for pain patients due to lower cost. Specific costs are rarely noted, however, since this depends on far too many factors (especially for a medical journal to get into). This section did contain some other specific references to cost, but I didn't mess with it too much, just added the numerous citations from unique medical studies that refer to it as being preferable in certain cases due to lower cost. Jqrt (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic SCM

Hi,

I´ve just noticed you classified plastic scm wikipedia site as likely to be deleted. I don´t really know what reasons lead you to do so. About lacking independent reliable sources i don´t really know what these are. All external references put in belong to a independent software publications. Could you please point out more specificly what content is conflicting with wikipedia´s policy?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejandro66 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Alejandro66 (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Brandon Jacobs with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Trusilver 03:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Brandon Jacobs. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You wrong boy you wrong. Brandon Jacobs name Big Meat.

According to who? Without a reliable source, this "nickname" can be construed as an attack on Jacobs' big frame. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My roommate say he Big Meat, every time he make a play he all like "Big Meat Big Meat!"

That's great, but without a reliable source (i.e. a newspaper article that calls him this), it can't be added to Jacobs' article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Debollweevil (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Someone uses my computer and makes this same edit randomly. I'm sorry, I'll not let it happen again. Debollweevil (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below; we will now have to extend the block to indefinite. You'd be better off starting a new account and being more secure with the password. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Are you saying that your account has been compromised? If so, the block on this account will be extended indefinitely, since we cannot be sure who is making this unblock request. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]