User talk:Dionyseus

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
RfB candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report

No RfXs since 21:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC).—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online}

Archives

/Archive 1, /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4

Re:About User:Philwelch

I didn't know he came back and started being disruptive again. I thought when he left, his sysop privs were removed as well. Why they let him keep them is beyond me. Cyberia23 22:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everywhere Girl section on The Inquirer article

Just wondered what you thought about this section (apparently EG is so important that its been given the second highest section position after "Writing Style") which now contains direct links to our user pages and identifies us as Wikipedians The Inquirer has complained about. I not sure what the policy on this is or where to go with it , but I'm a bit concerned that 1) it potentially acts as a vandal magnet for our user pages and 2) sets a bad precedent for participation in afds i.e. if wikipedian is a major arguer for delete in whatever meme/fad/gimmick by some tabloid style website which does have its own valid wikipedia article. The fad article is deleted and then the tabloid writes an angry article complaining about the wikipedian, and the wikipedian is subsequently included in the wikipedia article on the tabloid website as a complained-about person (this is not only potentially encouraging vandals but also possibly acting discouraging people from arguing for delete in afds). I wanted to get your opinion before I query the matter with admins. (I think if we just reverted the edits ourselves - it wouldn't stick and Inquirer fans would hassle us) Thanks. Bwithh 02:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philwelch RFAr

I don't think piling up as much dirt as you can on /Evidence is really necessary. It is certainly not helpful. Phil has thrown insults at other editors and made some unjust blocks. We know that by now. Please stop. -- Steel 02:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful to who? I am an involved party in that arbitration case, Philwelch has committed an unjust against me and I believe I am entitled to document all of Philwelch's inappropiate acts on Wikipedia. I personally feel it is very helpful, at least to me it is. Families of victims who have been murdered are entitled to say their piece in murder cases, it is part of the grieving process. Dionyseus 02:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that it's highly inappropriate to compare unjust blocks on an internet website to one's family being murdered, the information back from May that you're digging up is going to have a minimal impact on the case. At the moment the /Evidence page says a lot more about you than it does about Philwelch. I ask that you put your grudge against Phil to one side for the sake of the wiki. -- Steel 02:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Steel. Please stop digging up the dirt; it is actually having a retroactive effect from your perspective. — Deckill er 23:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) My thoughts on the overall situation at this point are here. Of course, you have the right to post whatever evidence you wish, and to make your own decisions what submissions will be useful; I think you've made your point by now, though. Most important, while your having been unfairly blocked and called names by a then-administrator is regretable, your analogy of such situation to being a family member of a murder victim shows a troubling lack of perspective. Newyorkbrad 02:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used the analogy to show that a grieving process is needed in cases in which an administrator has done unjust to the community. I don't know about the other involved editors but I was deeply affected by the unjust block, a part of me died that day, and now I need this so that I can put this all behind me. Dionyseus 03:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dionyseus, regarding the arbcom case, what are your thoughts about the outcome? I gather there is already a consensus that his admin powers are not going to be restored. Personally, while I agree with Steel that his problems include being uncivil, I think he edit wars to a significant extent. In your opinion, would restricting him to 1RR per day (or even per week) be beneficial to the project? Addhoc 16:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely. I prefer the per day version. Dionyseus 20:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response.

Stop following me. I have noticed that you are constantly voting in subjects that I voted on - namely, InShaneee's RfC, three AfDs, and more. And conveniently, all opposite of what I voted. This is stalking. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not follow you, I noticed your message on Hbdragon88's talkpage and I asked you to remain civil. As for the RfC and AfD's, we have similar interests with different opinions on those subjects. Dionyseus 04:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked your contributions - those were the first AfDs you participated in in a great deal of time. What are the odds that after a huge dispute over a huge article, you would randomly vote on three AfDs - the only three AfDs I voted on at the time, and vote opposite of me in each of them? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World's largest skunk ...

I saw on your user page that you had created the article for the world's largest skunk.

That sounded promising so I checked out the Eastern Hog-nosed Skunk, which got me interested in learning more about this skunk I'd never heard of.

Anyway, I came across some more references that I left on the article talk page; I didn't have time to do anything more with them in terms of expanding the article.

"Author of Wikipedia's article on the world's largest skunk" is a distinction Dave Barry and Gary Larson would appreciate. Wikipedia has over 3 million editors and not a one of the others will ever be able to claim that distinction unless they go out and find themselves a new skunk species.

Thanks for adding this sort of stuff to Wikipedia. Ultimately it's what this project is all about -- big skunks, dead poets, Nepalese towns and everything else. It's the fun of serendipitous discovery keeps millions of us goofing off reading when we should be working.
--A. B. ^(talk) 17:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I love skunks so I was surprised to see that there was an article on the Western Hog-nosed Skunk and not one for the

east version which is regarded as the largest skunk, so I went ahead and created it. Dionyseus 21:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Should not be used for Marketing ...

I'm not sure whether you are familiar with any chess engines/programs or whether your bias in the Rybka article is due to a vested interest. Readers come to Wikipedia to gain an unbiased view on topics because the authors of those products do not always state the truth on their websites. You state that moving the release date is not a criticism but for paying customers who have long been promised an earlier date this is a breach. If Microsoft moved the release date a dozen times they would lose customer satisfaction and suffer a drop in share price.Siegbert 07:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Siegbert[reply]

Please read the links I posted in your talk page, they are links to the official policies that are relevant to this matter and they explain why your edits were reverted. Dionyseus 07:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Inquirer...

Having carefully considered the viewpoint you made on the The Inquirer, I can see where you are coming from. Is there an official page or response from Wikipedia on this issue? Do you have a source for the claims you made against The Inquirer? Siegbert

What claims are you referring to? Dionyseus 12:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On this page http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33033 The Inquirer make several statements, "...That follows absurd and frenzied claims the INQUIRER and Jennifer Chandra had conspired to create the whole phenomenon. The deletions seem to be part of a campaign by Wikiparrots Dionyseus and Bwithh, who took it upon themselves to out the Everywhere Girl's identity and also to make derogatory comments about INQUIRER editorial."

How can you as a Wikipedia editor be making derogatory claims about the Inquirer, and then expect to maintain integrity? Do you have a record of the claims you made against the Inquirer, and any evidence to back it up? Perhaps you were "misquoted" and so presenting to the reader what you actually said may clear this up. Wikipedia's image as a independent resource may be compromised on issues such as this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siegbert (talk • contribs)

I've seen that article by The Inquirer and it's ridiculous, that's all I'll say about it. Dionyseus 20:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so far you have also failed to admit any wrongdoing with your Rydermark comments. It's hard to take someone's allegations about integrity serious when they themselves show so little of it 83.135.97.168 18:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know Rydermark is a hoax, it never was released despite the claims that it would be released for free in holiday season 06. Dionyseus 20:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VegaDark's Request for Adminship

Dionyseus

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 07:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Notability of Vitarroz

A tag has been placed on Vitarroz, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Адам12901 ^Talk 08:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article asserted notability, and the speedy tag was removed by an administrator. Dionyseus 09:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing topics about animals

Thanks for the notes in the missing topics page - Skysmith 13:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, I find it very interesting creating articles and learning more about these creatures. Dionyseus 03:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:Homo floresiensis reconstruction.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Homo floresiensis reconstruction.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. teb728 22:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User: Abu badali seems to have neglected to leave you this notice on February 14. --teb728 22:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Hi, Dionyseus, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA, which was successful with a final tally of 61/0/2. I'm honored at the trust the community has placed in me and hope my conduct as an administrator will justify that trust. If you have any comments about my use of the tools I would be glad to hear from you on my talk page. Thanks again! Heimstern Läufer 08:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy ^talk 03:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from a new admin

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was (47/0/0) upon closure and now phase I is complete. I think the tools will aid both me and the encyclopedia. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, or if you think I'm misbehaving I'm always open to recall. Thanks, James086 ^Talk 13:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for your support in my recent RfA which passed unanimously - thus proving that you can indeed fool some of the people some of the time. I'm still coming to terms with the new functionality I have, but so far nothing bad has happened. As always, if there's anything you need to let me know, just drop me a line on my Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandal revert

Glad to be of any service. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entrusted with the Bucket!

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. Thanks for your vote, I've received an overwhelming 96% support and successfully took a copy of bucket-and-mop from the main office!

School graduation exam and HKCEE are both pressing in, so I might become inactive for a while. But soon after that, I look forward to working with you! --Der yck C. 03:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram 15:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch

The above entitled arbitration case has closed, and the final decision has been published at the link shown. The Arbitration Committee has found that Philwelch misused his administrative tools. Because he gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions and after an arbitration case was filed against him, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at WP:RfA. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dissapointed that none of the reasonable proposed paroles ([1], [2]) were even placed at Proposed Decision for voting, however I'm pleased that the arbitrators didn't completely exonerate Philwelch. Dionyseus 19:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration re: Abu badali

Hi. I am writing you because you were one of the respondants on the RfC about Abu badali that was started back in November. There has been no substantive comment there for over a month and User:Abu badali has never bothered to respond to the RfC. The last comment on the talk page of the RfC was a suggestion to take it to arbitration, which is what I propose we do. Accordingly, I have created a shell/draft listing to add to the list of Arbitration Committee matters here. I've listed your new there, preliminarily, as a complaintant. If you are not interested in participating, please remove your name. If you are, please add your comments as we must prepare a 500 word summary of the case. Thanks for your attention - Jord 15:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

While I continue to be anti-VGCharts and do not appreciate the edit warring you did, I apologize for the edit warring that I did and my attitude (be it insults, sarcasm, or rudeness). - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology. I however don't remember edit warring over it, I believe I intead argued politely about it on the talk page. Today the records page is better than ever in my opinion. Dionyseus 19:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, I do believe you did participate in the edit war along with me and WhiteMinority. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember that, it must have been months ago, but if I did participate in an edit war I apologize. I have learned that it's much better to discuss rather than simply reverting. Dionyseus 21:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for supporting my recent RfA, which proved successful. I hope to put the tools to good use. Shimeru 16:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Federer

I noticed you added a bit to the opening to Roger Federer that was deleted a while ago. That same sentence, with references, is also mentioned in his playing style section. Does it need to be there twice? And the playing style sentence is correctly referenced using the CITE template, so you might want to re-paste it from there. Cheers, on camera^(t) 18:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have now self-reverted. I'll ask in the article's talkpage whether it'd be more proper for it to be in the Intro rather than the Playing Style section. Dionyseus 21:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving Abu badali has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali. You have expressed an interest in this before, so please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Workshop.

Thanks, - Jord 16:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeout

Let's cool our heels for a second and craft an RFC. I'll type up my points and then you can add yours. -- Mwalcoff 04:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Tamilee Webb

AfD has been posted for Tamilee Webb --KenWalker | Talk 08:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I didn't create that article. Dionyseus 08:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Image:Dinohippus.jpg)

You've uploaded Image:Image:Dinohippus.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Men's health Talk page

I saw your comment from Mar 21st, and I can't believe how sad that guy's story (BTC) is! As for your question, there's no specific third party studies that document horror stories--it would be seen as shock journalism. Contrary to his self-report, it was probably an infection.

You can check out wikiproject:medicine and ask them, but post-op infections kill people all the time. Its a risk of any surgery, and these risks are just brushed off by patients all the time. Physicians are supposed to go over this with their patients, and discuss the risks. I'm personally against all forms of elective surgery, but that's just my personal belief.

Anyways, I checked out your user page and loved it! You can probably tell from my screen name, that I'm a huge fan of korean starcraft, but I'm also a chess fan, and piano fan too. (although I prefer watching Flash beat Bisu, not vice versa) I wanted to drop in and say hello, and thank you for sharing that link. That story is eye-opening and I never knew that could happen in America, but maybe for those who venture to Thailand for the $499 special. I'd try to incorporate the info myself into the page (about risks of surgery in general) but its really not specific to that page, since the page is about all forms of PE, and the article would need to branch off before it warrants a section on surgery risks. I could include PLENTY of verifiable 3rd party pubmed links to cite surgery risks and mortality rates. LeeJaedong (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chimpanzee-human divergence

Just a brief note regarding this (not relating to the mistaken revert of me, which was fixed afterwards, but the remaining part of the edit + edit summary). You may not be aware of the (ever-) ongoing discussion between paleontologists and molecular biologists, but it tends to be pretty heated (considering that I belong among the molecular biologists, I know far too well). To sum it up: Yes, molecular work may be more accurate than ordinary paleontological work, but sometimes it is the other way around, as it depends on sampling (N fossils available versus N alleles sampled [& from where and what; mt or nDNA, microsatellites, etc]) and the statistic approach (bootstrapping, calibration of the molecular clock, etc). The latter is easily revealed by comparing methods on the entries for these species in GenBank. Consequently, unless one clearly is superior, the only NPOV option is to quote the figures for both the paleontological and molecular work. • Rabo³ • 01:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, didn't know that. Dionyseus (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article you !voted on in an AfD is up for deletion a second time

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BVE Trainsim (2nd nomination) Ikip (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man-Faye

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-Faye (4th nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-Faye (4th nomination). --Gwern (contribs) 11:15 4 August 2010 (GMT) 11:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everywhere Girl: You're deleted

Wikipedian parrots peck her to death

By Adamson Rust: Friday 14 July 2006, 10:05

Everywhere Girl: You're deleted wayback.archive.org 2006-07-19

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Phibian (Dune)

The article Phibian (Dune) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Claudia Mitchell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Claudia Mitchell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudia Mitchell until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]