Please remove the above template if you return to editing. Unless you already have a heading going, please leave new messages at the bottom of the page. Click the "watch" tab at the top of the page and keep an eye on your watchlist; I will generally respond to messages left here, here. Some important and/or interesting, but distributed, conversations may be reconstructed here after the fact. I will do my best to retain timelines and textual fidelity, but if I screw it up, feel free to let me know. Thanks.

Archives

Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3 • Archive 4

nazi censorship police states are wrong, please refrain from defacing legitmate concernskthnx! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.27.18.25 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 17 April 2007 PDT.

Your edits will continue to be reverted by me or other editors if they do not contribute constructively to the discussion. Conspiracy theories involving Karl Rove and the Virginia Tech shooting are not constructive. Thank you. --Dynaflow 01:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this man is a nazi apologist-----^—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.27.18.25 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 17 April 2007 PDT.

[^this man doesn't know his asshole from his armpit HalfShadow 21:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Man, I love Godwin's law. This tedious conversation is over already. --Dynaflow 01:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dynaflow! I'm impressed that most of the eye candy I've found on Wikipedia comes from you. Great Work! I wanted to know your opinion of this new design for the template of the CSU system:

As you can see it's derived from the University of California template:

I'm hoping to get some feedback from you.--Dabackgammonator (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it's sad to see the previous CSU navbox go the way of the dinosaurs (I've always thought it was my neatest design), your replacement looks quite good. I would double-check the public-domain status of the CSU seal, though. I was uncomfortable using an actively trademarked seal in the UC template, even if it was technically in the public domain (this conversation is a must-read to get abreast of the arguments you might face in using the CSU seal). However, the UC seal eventually prevailed because Tiffany designed the thing in 1910, making the seal copyright-free, if not trademark-free. I'm not so sure about the CSU seal's status, though; the design elements it uses bespeak more the 1950s than the 1850s.

I would avoid using the seal and use something completely and clearly in the public domain (WP:FUC has a tendency to move around in unpredictable ways). As an example, here's my previous, preferred version of the UC template, using an unambiguously public-domain image (ignore the old code; it distorts some of the text now). --Dynaflow babble 20:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of changing the template boxes' colours. UC Berkeley's official colours are Yale Blue and Golden Yellow, whilst the UC system's colours are the ones that were previously used as UC Berkeley's.WorldAtlas (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my responses on your Talk page and on the respective templates' Talk pages. --Dynaflow babble 08:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a message reagarding the intro to the CPP article on the talk page; I think we can reach an agreement here. Let me know what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.196.168 (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the article Talk page. --Dynaflow babble 00:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i saw your post on Twinkle and Huggle being down and your link to [1] diff about it being the darkest day. Can you bring me up to speed on what happened back on that day in May of 07? I wasn't active back then, what happened? Was a vandal bot operating or something? Fill me in ;) Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 04:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all probability, the CVU has seen even darker days than that, but it was pretty dark nonetheless. That was another day when Twinkle broke down completely, and unlike this time, vandalism was hot and heavy all the way through. That diff just sticks with me as one of Wikipedia's funnier moments because of the note of sheer panic in Flubeca's "voice" when he changed the DEFCON to 1. --Dynaflow babble 05:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spicoli asked the same question, so I'm giving you the exact same response as I gave him.

I'm sorry if I weren't clear: the standard on WP:USCITY only wants Census Bureau data: "US Census numbers only" is given for population in intro and in the demographics section. I'm not complaining about the use of sourced Census Bureau estimates (on Oakland, I used a Census Bureau estimate from 2006), but about local estimates and unsourced claims of Census Bureau estimates. Nyttend (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[this part not given to Spicoli] I believe that I've seen a link for 2007 Census Bureau estimates (they should be released by now, as the 2006 estimates were released in early 2007), but I don't know where to find them. Acntx has worked a lot with geography, especially metropolitan areas, for which population estimates are highly important, so I've asked Acntx for help with this. Hopefully we can you even more up-to-date Census data. Nyttend (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Orlady left the following comment on my talk page, which is more a reply to you than to me:

IMO, Nyttend's action was correct in part. An unsourced census estimate from 2007 should not have replaced the count from 2000. However, the estimate belongs in the article in addition to the actual count -- with a source. This general topic was discussed recently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Guideline#Including non-Census demographic data. --Orlady (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Nyttend (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posted my response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Guideline#Including non-Census demographic data. --Dynaflow babble 22:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Dabackgammonator (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:UPenn seal.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off with its head. --Dynaflow babble 05:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Martinautoerotic2.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, off with its head. --Dynaflow babble 05:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have some free time, so I thought I would fix the links to Los Angeles (at least the links in templates). Thanks for pointing out that error, I think I fixed it. TJ Spyke 20:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even from Galactus. 24.28.70.129 (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm going to have to disagree strongly with this reversion and and the associated {{uw-vand1}} warning you gave to the anonymous editor who made the edit you reverted. Not only is that edit not the kind of vandalism for which one would use Twinkle's "rollback (VANDAL)" button, but seems to be, in fact, a helpful elaboration of the rather vague phrase "popular images of the Southern California lifestyle." The IP editor seems to have immediately re-added what your reversion struck, hopefully blaming technical difficulties and not realizing that his or her contribution had been labeled vandalism and summarily redacted. It would be tragic to scare away a helpful contributor on his or her first edit. I have replaced your warning on the IP's Talk page with a welcome template. If you still think this is a case of vandalism and you're seeing something in this that I'm not, please let me know your reasoning. Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 08:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This very same edit has been made to the UCLA page in the past from a different IP (but likely the same editor). You're right in one sense: perhaps my level of warning was too strong. But the edit, in no way, is constructive. Adding "emphasizing freedom in a land of perpetual sunshine" is a great way to make make an already-vague-statement even more vague. It has been reverted in the past and the repetitive nature of this edit is what led me to constitute it as vandalism. Perhaps I was too harsh, but the edit should not remain on the page. The original clause should be removed or followed by a more substantive description. Sorry for the misunderstanding. —ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² 09:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a user who responded to the straw poll regarding non-free images in sports, your further input is requested with regards to the Straw poll summary and proposed guidelines on image use — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, are you talking about the same Alex Benson or a different one? --Dynaflow babble 13:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, It is a differnt Alex Benson, I would like to make a page on this actor

Clopincutie xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clopincutie (talk • contribs) 20:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved your edit out of the article on the unrelated footballer and into your userspace so that you can work on the article at you leisure until you decide it's ready for prime time. You can find your article at User:Clopincutie/Alex Benson. --Dynaflow babble 20:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before you really get started, you should read through two things. One is Wikipedia:Your first article. It will tell you how to avoid common pitfalls and generally help you learn the ropes of article-writing here. The second is Wikipedia:Notability (people). Wikipedia has guidelines on how "notable" a subject should be before the Project feels justified in having an article on it (in order to avoid becoming "what Wikipedia is not"). I have a feeling that, as an amateur actor, your subject's notability may be challenged by somebody at some point, so you will want to look now and decide if your subject will pass the guidelines' litmus test(s) for notability, and if you think he will, gather citable references to prove your case and build your article. If you have any questions, just drop me a line at my Talk page. Once you think the article is ready to go, you can either move the page into the mainspace yourself, or let me know and I'll do it. --Dynaflow babble 20:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure why you were taking out the in-page link to the Dutch Empire article and the map of the Dutch Empire here, but I didn't think it helped the article to get rid of them, so I undid your edit. In the future, you way wish to discuss changes on the article's Talk page first. Please also leave edit summaries; it helps everyone figure out why you're doing what you're doing. Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 20:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to me i already wrote on User talk:Tomeasy and told him that the dutch empire was old and suxx now i even checked the kingdom of italy italian page and seen nothing about empires italian empire so it evens with the kingdom of the netherlands —Preceding unsigned comment added by Questchest (talk • contribs) 21:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things that are old are the whole point of History sections in articles. Also, the goal of the Netherlands article is to make it as complete and comprehensive as possible, given the format. That goal has nothing whatsoever to do with keeping even with the Italians. --Dynaflow babble 21:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed you put up a request for the speedy deletion of Predrag Jerinic, an article authored by Zuull (talk · contribs). For some obscure reason, the consensus for quite a while has been that professional athletes and top-level amateur athletes are considered to sort of "automatically" have notability, regardless of how obscure they may actually be. As such, article stubs on pro footballers no one's ever heard of are at least as safe from deletion, due to utter non-notableness, as Pokémon characters used to be. For specifics on just how low the bar is set for athlete articles, see Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Athletes. --Dynaflow babble 08:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I wanted to let you know that I Proded the article, not because I didn't take your advice to heart, but because I have a different understanding of the notability guidelines. As I read the article as is, it seems as though Jerinic has yet to actually play a game professionally, which means that he is not yet notable per WP:ATHLETE. Again, I could be wrong, so feel free to de-prod it if you like, but I may still take it to AFD unless I see reason otherwise. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any insight on how this page can be written so it is not deleted? There are numerous companies listed on Wikipedia - is there a set format that should be followed or something else I'm missing? Connk (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at your Talk page. --Dynaflow babble 20:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before we get started, there are a couple of considerations you will want to keep in mind. If you are connected with the company you're writing about, you'll want to declare it straight out, say, on your userpage. It makes a lot of editors uneasy/annoyed/livid when they suddenly discover that another editor has an undeclared conflict of interest for the articles they're editing, and you might often find yourself directed to Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. The other consideration is that, if you're writing an article on your company just so that it will have an article on Wikipedia, or worse yet, to advertise it, you'll very likely be running up against the Wikipedia:Spam content guidelines.

On to writing. You're going to want to make sure that your article's subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which are more or less the basic inclusion criteria for the encyclopedia. In the case of your subject, you're going to want to peruse Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If you decide that your subject would be considered wiki-notable, then just follow the advice at Wikipedia:Your first article, and you should be on your way to contributing helpful content. --Dynaflow babble 19:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your article out of the main article space and into your user space so that you can get the article into shape at your leisure without having to worry about it being summarily deleted before you're done with it. You can find you article at User:Connk/Navilyst Medical. When you feel the article is ready for prime time, you can either move it back into article space yourself using the pagemove function, or you can drop me a line and I can do it for you. If you have any more questions, feel free to leave me a message at my Talk page. Best of luck. --Dynaflow babble 20:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworked the article can you take a look and let me know if it's appropriate to move into the main article space? Connk (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to check in on the revised article - if it could be pushed into the article space. Thanks Connk (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your correction, it was intellectually weak of me to have cited wikiepedia and it won't happen again. If I have an email from someone, do I have to host it on the internet before I can cite it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Akari no ryu (talk • contribs)

You could try forwarding it to OTRS. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If you have the permission to reveal its contents, hosting it would be a good idea. That way the information is also available to other editors. You still need OTRS to confirm it's indeed the transcript of an actual email conversation (and if possible proof of who the participants are if the addresses don't make it clear) - Mgm|^(talk) 12:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Another user seems to have attempted to copy and paste the content from User:Cheetah255/Sandbox/Caitlin's Way (video game) over into the mainspace, creating the new article Caitlin's Way (video game). What are your intentions for this article you were building, is it finished, etc.? Please respond at Talk:Caitlin's Way (video game). Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 00:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this was NOT supposed to be an "article", only a subpage --Cheetah255 (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Question on suitability for speedy deletion. --Dynaflow babble 01:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justiceiscoming (talk · contribs) actually did attribute the source of the page he or she copied over into article space (look at the bottom of the page as of the first edit). In light of that, you may want to attenuate the message you sent him or her somewhat, specifically the bit about copyright violation. Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 03:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, still don't think that's enough. Wikipedia:SPLIT#Procedure (not the same situation, I know, but analogous) says that the acknowledgement of prior editing history should be in the edit summary. Having it in the text of the cut-'n-paste screenshot wouldn't meet that requirement. Bencherlite^Talk 08:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to follow the guidelines in "Wikipedia: Your First Article". I took the article for Ephairim Shay and was going to alter it for a new article for Peter 'Big Pete' McCullough. Both Shay and McCullough were notable Union soldiers in the Civil War.

I thought I was in a "sandbox" where I could work with the article and then get it "moved" when I had it finalized.

So, now, my question: where can I create a temporary article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ParadiseMissouri (talk • contribs) 13:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a sandbox at User:ParadiseMissouri/Sandbox and a starter page for your subject at User:ParadiseMissouri/Sandbox/Peter McCullough. If you have any questions about how to move it into article space when you're done, just leave me a message on my Talk page. Best of luck. --Dynaflow babble 13:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I am trying to do is create a portal, which has a "selected image" field feturing relevant images to the University of the Arctic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misha bb (talk • contribs) 14:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's here, anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:University_of_the_Arctic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misha bb (talk • contribs) 14:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dynaflow. The reason I added the speedy delete tag to the Philip Durbrow page is because Marshallstrategy, the user who created the page, previously added a page about a company called Marshall Strategy which was deleted as being purely advertising. Creating a page about the CEO seemed like an attempt to circumvent the previous deletion. I am pretty new to these policies so I guess I feel the need to justify myself... Anyway, thanks. :) -Sketchmoose (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand completely. In fact, I was mulling whether or not the article was a clear CSD case at the same time you were. I still think it qualifies for deletion, but not for speedy deletion, which is reserved for only those articles of such patent uselessness that no one (other than their authors) would seriously contest their deletion. Since there was a ray or two of hope that this article might be saved, it should be taken to AfD to get a wider consensus on whether or not to delete. --Dynaflow babble 13:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create this, actually - I had just userfied it (moved it to his user page) the moment before you tagged it db-person. It quite often happens. Actually, I am coming to think that userfying mini-autobiographies like this, though newby-friendly, is a waste of time: I once checked back, and out of 25 I had userfied, one thanked me and went on to edit, the rest never edited again. All they wanted was a sort of Facebook to write about themselves. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry about that. I think you userified it as I was requesting deletion, and I got sucked down a redirect rabbit hole. I have TW set to send a message to the first editor of a page whenever I CSD something, so it must have inadvertently notified you then. --Dynaflow babble 13:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. JohnCD (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised a request for arbitration re: NatalieDee article merged with Married to the Sea See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration-- Spastic on elastic (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No you haven't. Your contribs as of this moment don't show you ever touching Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Note that arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution (I wasn't even aware that there was an actual, bona fide, earth-shaking dispute about that article). Please talk to those you disagree with first before attempting to drag everybody involved into wikicourt. I'd like to hear what you believe the crux of this dispute is. Get back to me on that. Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 23:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just finished putting in my request for arbitration, you were just very quick to check! I have tried to discuss this matter on the articles talk page and Afd page, however no one replied to my reasoning and sources and a decision to merge was made without me and in error.Spastic on elastic (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should realize that this is sort of like appealing a traffic citation to the Supreme Court. The place you should go to contest the merge of the article is WP:DRV. --Dynaflow babble 23:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you only allowed a little under 35 hours to elapse with your message unanswered at Talk:NatalieDee before you went straight for Arbitration. Things just don't work that fast here. People are on different continents, they have real-world things to do, etc.; you can't expect instantaneous responses from everyone. Patience. --Dynaflow babble 23:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that these things take time but it wasn't the fact that no one replied, rather that the decision was rushed through by someone and the merge was made without further discussion or any discussion at all regarding my findings on the website's notability and the new sources I found. I was also unsure of what path to take as there is no dispute to resolve between users (only users ignoring users) and the article was never deleted (only merged).Spastic on elastic (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't ignored at the AfD (which was up for nearly a week); your arguments just didn't prevail. You were also not ignored at Talk:NatalieDee; you simply didn't wait for an answer. Wikipedia:There is no deadline. --Dynaflow babble 23:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dynaflow for your welcome. I would appreciate advice on a matter. I have undertaken an extensive rewrite of Jack Dann to try and present a balanced, neutral article, conforming as best as I am able, with my limited experience, to Wikipedia standards. The article, which was mainly derived from a marketing bio prior to my contributions, previously had been tagged for Autobiography, Neutrality and Advertisement warnings.

While there is more work to be done, better secondary sourcing for example and further development, I am hoping the work so far has elevated the article beyond the tagged issues. Who decides whether this is the case, and who can take these off? While I see how to do it technically, I am unsure of the etiquette here, and wish to do so on the basis of consensus, rather than personal judgement. Should I put up a request on the Discussion page for the article for example (assuming others are watching)? Anyway sure you get the idea of the question here. Appreciate your time on a reply.Mesmacat (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can take the tags down if they think they no longer apply, so you're more then welcome to do so. You may also want to consider joining WikiProject Science Fiction and asking the folks over there for an informal assessment. --Dynaflow babble 17:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up my Philip Harper mess! I stepped away from Wiki to consume some sukiyaki and beer. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can i copy things from here and add them to my website? if i say so and so copywrited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwo4 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article texts are copyrighted, but they are freely available for use and modification under the GNU Free Documentation License. For images, their copyright status can vary and will appear on the image pages for each individual image. For more detailed information, see Wikipedia:Copyrights. --Dynaflow babble 19:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what evidence do you have that the article is in error? ....also, i'm pretty sure it is not permitted to use wikipedia as the source for original research. --emerson7 21:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is very hard to prove a negative, especially one which is simply taken for granted. As far as I am aware, no one has undertaken to prove that no British universities use the Latin honors system, and it is possible that, upon completion of such a study, the researchers would find themselves written up in the Annals of Improbable Research. However, here's an experiment: Go to www.ox.ac.uk, go to the search box, type in "cum laude," and see if you can find any mention of it outside the CVs of people who graduated from schools in the US, Mexico, Italy, or the other countries that commonly use the Latin system. Then type "degree classification" into the search box. You will find a lot of documents like this one (look on the second page) which make no mention of anything cum laude. Also, I don't expect you'll find mention of anyone graduating with Latin honors here.

It seems pretty obvious that the author of the cited article added the parenthetical pseudo-equivalency in a misguided attempt to clarify an unfamiliar degree classification scheme for the benefit of Newsweek readers who happened to be too daft to infer that "first-class honors" means exactly what it says. Again, there's no need to perpetuate such a glaring mistake just because Newsweek printed it. --Dynaflow babble 00:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You speeedied Evergreen Terrace (band), before I got a chance to look at it. Anyway there is a category with

• At Our Worst
• Burned Alive by Time
• Losing All Hope Is Freedom
• Sincerity Is an Easy Disguise in This Business
• Wolfbiker
• Writer's Block (Evergreen Terrace album)
• plus others

Maybe they should have been merged into the article or also should be speedied. The band would appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music) #5.

Labels include Indianola Records, Indianola Record, Eulogy Recordings and Metal Blade Records.

I am not interested in working on this further. Paul foord (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I was grossly mistaken (I occasionally am, but I usually catch my errors quickly), Evergreen Terrace (band) would have been so scanty on verifiable assertions of notability that it didn't even seem worthwhile to give the article a trial by fire at WP:AFD (for comparison, the articles I did feel needed to be vetted by AFD rather than summarily deleted yesterday included Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney the Bowl Cut Sloth). SchuminWeb (talk · contribs), who carried out the actual deletion, seems to have agreed with me. Those peripheral album articles, however, have the kind of citations that could have easily established the notability of the subject of the band's main article. I'll propose the article for a deletion review if you'd be willing to bring the article up to the minimal WP:V and WP:N (actually WP:BAND in this case) standards once it's been undeleted. What do you say? --Dynaflow babble 11:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for your invitation. I am glad to stay for correcting some articles (and my english too);)--Kefas de Merciful 00:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kefas de Merciful (talk • contribs)

Long time no see, 'ol friend. How've you been? --Amaraiel (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oi! You beat me to it again ( Evelyn_Staton )! *laughs*--Amaraiel (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How goes the vandal-hunting? --Dynaflow babble 05:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great except Twinkle doesn't work very well in Kubuntu for some reason. Worked just fine with Ubuntu...--Amaraiel (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make Firefox your default browser instead of Konqueror, and make sure you've got Java set up all kosher and such (see here). --Dynaflow babble 05:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

--Amaraiel^{Send Message} 03:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A warm welcome. :) - First, I was like "Uh-oh" when all of a sudden I got notified about having received a message. XD - even though I was not drunk, had not smoked a bowl and did not pass out, it seems you have already had such moments as well. Nussi (talk) 07:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many. =) --Dynaflow babble 07:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

greetings, i believe you have fixed the flag of ezo republic back in the page. my apologies if you are not responsible for the recent update. but here is a reason why the flag should be removed from the template.

as you can follow the discussion in the page (at ezo republic), i raised a question for the reference of the flag. then i went to the editor for the flag, asking if it's possible to bring up a source. although the comment has been removed (but still traceable through archives), i had a reply that the flag needs to be taken off until proper reference is shown. that is the story for the removed flag.

if you are concerned of the issue, i would be happy to hear your thought on the discussion page. so it will be absolutely clear to everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.191.54 (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My contribution to that article consisted solely of making a broken template arrangement display correctly, so I have put your question to Wikiproject Japan. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Vexing vexillological question re: the Republic of Ezo's flag. --Dynaflow babble 21:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the warm welcome and advice! I'll definitely take a look at the articles and help out some! Thanks again! ^_^ Loganator456 (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please take another look at akacool.com? It is not an store, it is a database provides releasing information pretty much like Anime News Network. I think it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. I would be happy to discuss it with you, please let me know what do you think. Thanks a lot! EmilyPeace (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 20:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I was a little surprised to see such a strong reaction from you regarding the links posted. Three links which I personally felt were relevant do not constitute some sort of spamming excercise. In each of these cases, the wiki already makes reference to fictional and speculative items. I am happy to adjust the posting as necessary, but your reaction to these seems initially a little strong. I am sure you do have to deal with true spamming a lot, but I felt my link posts were relevant. Just learning the ropes... — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrishaTwilight (talk • contribs)

Meh! Indeed. --Rodhullandemu 21:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi—I'm doing a minor research project on wikipedia at UCSC. I wonder if I might be able to ask you about your contributions to wikipedia at some point. Thanks Dynaflow. Rodomontade (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it that easy to figure out your @ucsc email? I don't think it's dflow, as your user page you picked that ID based on a song? I'll continue to try to figure it out. I'll also be using my talk page as the forum to get to know some things about your experience on Wikipedia. Please chime in. :-) Rodomontade (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful comments over on my talk page. It's very much appreciated, I'm completely lost in the backwoods of Wikipedia, but trying hard to do some editing anyway.--Levalley (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)LeValley[reply]

I agree, that's why I was suggesting that WP:ANEW was the right place to deal with edit warring accusations.   Will Beback  talk  03:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, are you sure that wasnt a violation of 1rr? Because his edits were consecutive? If it isnt a 1rr violation, I'll have to delete it from his RFC. Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's look at this systematically. The common understanding of WP:3RR I've seen in action as a Wikipedian cultural norm varies slightly from the "letter of the law" as it's written on the 3RR policy page. Specifically, with the recognition that making major changes to an established page (per WP:BOLD) will almost invariably involve "undoing" some of the work of others, somewhat of a pass is given to initial edits in a particular burst of editing unless they are blindingly obvious undoings of the contributions immediately prior to theirs (it's also a huge pain in the ass to hunt down the origins of what an initial edit may or may not have undone). At the first edit in this series, Collect had not touched the article since 9 March and had not made a substantial change since 8 March. Meanwhile several others were editing heavily. I would consider the deck sufficiently shuffled to consider the first edit on 12 March as a start from 0.

• Collect (15:06, 12 March) Pass.
• Others Someone rewrites the intro.
• Collect Collect re-rewrites the intro; however, he does not return it to how it was when he last edited. Instead he changes it, apparently building on previous revisions. This is not reversion but evolution, the process through which articles mature during periods of heavy editing.
• Others Collect is substantially reverted.
• Collect Collect adds {{sectOR}} tags to three sections and takes out two images.
• Others Collect is completely reverted.
• Collect (15:25, 13 March) Collect partially reverts the reversion. 1RR.

This does not appear to have been a 3RR situation. --Dynaflow babble 06:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thx a lot. I corrected my mistake in RFC: [2] He still violated terms of his unblock tho. Phoenix of9 (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message. I just wanted to let you know that, I just Download Huggle Today Seen Here and I'm new to it. I'm trying to understand it. I been using Twinkle! for the past month. We all make mistakes and we all learn from them. I am sorry for this.--Michael (Talk) 05:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you been a Rollbacker for a year. > I only been a Rollbacker for 3 weeks. So as you see, I have allot to learn.--Michael (Talk) 06:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. We all go off half-cocked every once in a while. (A couple months ago, I accidentally CSD'ed some poor rookie's newly-created userpage because I somehow thought it was a vanity page with no meaningful content being posted to Mainspace. Fortunately, I usually review my recent contribs periodically as I edit, and I noticed the mistake and was able to self-revert before anybody noticed.) Anyway, just try to err on the side of caution when using the built-in, official rollback. Personally, I avoid using the built-in rollback feature except when speed is of the essence (e.g., an obvious vandal is on a rampage, etc.), when Twinkle is throttled into uselessness by server lag or otherwise breaks down, or when I'm reverting my own fuckups. I've probably used rollback less than fifty times since I asked for it one night when trying to clean up someone else's mess; by comparison, the Toolserver tells me I'm coming up on my 1900th Twinkle edit. The built-in rollback is a great tool to keep in your back pocket for use in a pinch, but there really are better ways to go about reverting things. --Dynaflow babble 07:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dynaflow. I was reading your user page just now...the irreverence made me laugh. Thought you should know. Nice "crap" you made, too. Kudos. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 12:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

=) Thanks. I'm glad someone is deriving enjoyment from the page besides me. --Dynaflow babble 06:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is the guy you met at the little cookout at UCSC Family Student Housing a couple of weeks ago.

You brought Whiskey. Which is why I can't remember your name.

Anyhoo, you gave me instructions on how to contact you and that you would help me post a couple of articles. I would greatly appreciate that.

My user name here is "SBones5". Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbones5 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I know this is true as I was one of his student but I will dig out the newspaper for it to be true as that would be a relied source, thankyou for your message Blacklodge (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that user name wil cause political case. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comment on my talk page was not only abhorrently impersonal, but ridiculous to boot. I'm sorry, but after undoing Ddave2425's changes three times, each time qualifying them as "good faith", trying to engage him in the talk page, and Ddave's stark refusal to listen to or engage in discussion has lead me to refer to his edits as vandalism. If you disagree with that assessment, fine, but I find it wholly inappropriate to leave me a message on my talk page regarding a slight disagreement over what qualifies as vandalism is this case. It is clear to me that Ddave has made no effort to reconcile his view with that of the majority, to engage in discourse over the validity of his understanding, and simply resorts to repeatedly making the same edit over and over; this to me is overt vandalism. I also question the objectivity of someone so persistently trying to contradict FDA, manufacturer, and published findings with a single, non-conclusive, small-pool study.

If you disagree with me in the future, please message me in a personal manner without copy-and-pasting some grade school-style lecture to my talk page. DKqwerty (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a message in response to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#false claims of vandalism (permalink). Most of my attention last night was occupied with hunting down an army of sockpuppets, and so I apologize if I didn't take the time to write you a gentler message. However, I do stand by the gist of what the message said. I understand that both you and Ddave2425 are both relatively new to the encyclopedia, but it must be understood that accusations of vandalism should never be tossed around lightly. When you revert a change in a content dispute with an edit summary like this, you are essentially equating someone's helpful (if wrongheaded and overly-contentious) attempt to improve the encyclopedia with a bored middle school kid's replacement of the article on Abraham Lincoln with the word "poop" in a gigantic font.
Edit warring in general is considered bad form (please read Wikipedia:Edit war; Ddave2425 has already been warned), but when it's coupled with accusations of vandalism, it starts to look really, really bad. Even when someone is being ridiculously truculent about what they believe to be right, it is still incumbent upon you to assume good faith and refrain from making accusations of bad-faith editing (with the occasional exception of obviously deranged editors who actually seem to believe the crazy jabberings they add to the encyclopedia, e.g., this guy). In any case, please just try to be civil to even the difficult people you may run into here; there are a hell of a lot of them. You may enjoy this essay: Wikipedia:No angry mastodons. Good luck in sorting out your dispute, and happy editing. --Dynaflow babble 01:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blah blah blah. Sockpuppets or not, I'm sure I would have received the same templated, impersonal, robotic message regardless. Don't try and make it sound like you have super-important things to do, so important that you can't take 180 second to write me a response. While you're off fighting one of the major problems with the Internet – anonymity – you're also perpetrating the other – impersonality. DKqwerty (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you find it hard not to assume the worst in our attempts to give guidance (which we genuinely intend to be helpful), but trying to match what you perceive as our impersonalism with what I perceive as dismissive derision really doesn't help anyone. To answer your riposte to Literaturegeek at your Talk page, you were not "being welcomed ... like some fucking child." You were being asked to sign your posts on Talk pages so other editors can tell who made them -- an eminently reasonable request. The "Welcome to Wikipedia" bit can be taken as a welcome if one likes, but mostly it just offers a face-saving "out" for someone without much evidence of communication on his or her Talk page who might have made an error somewhere. "Oh yeah, sure. Sorry, I'm new. Yeah." // "Oh, that's okay. Glad to have you aboard, etc."
As for my leavings: yes, I did use a template for part of it. However, I did take the time to "personalize" it to let you know exactly why I contacted you (compare the raw template {{Uw-wrongsummary}} with my message above. It took less than 180 seconds to type the addendum, but I still made the attempt to let you know precisely what was up nonetheless. Give us some credit here. --Dynaflow babble 08:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dynaflow,

I am the marketing account executive that is responsible for the Texas Pete page, please do not delete information that I add during the next few weeks. Your help would be apprectiated as we do make changes, but the content posted must stay.

Thank you,

Ryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmstetler (talk • contribs) 20:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You should be aware that there is no "ownership" of articles on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles). Any contribution by any user can be modified or redacted by any other user as long as they are in line with Wikipedia's community standards. The reason I removed the text in question was because it read like overtly promotional marketing copy, which does not have an appropriate tone for an encyclopedia (see Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles for ideas on how the article might be better improved). We welcome your help in fleshing out the article; however, you should keep in mind that editors with a potential conflict of interest may be subject to a higher degree of scrutiny. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest#Editors who may have a conflict of interest for advice on how you may want to proceed, and feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 23:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a scam. See my comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lifnlsdlsdnf. The sock farm has been editing biographies of notable billionaires to make it appear that they're behind "Rockwick Capital". That's a major WP:BLP violation (also felony fraud) and I've undone all those edits. I think we have most of the scam out of Wikipedia now, but there's probably something we haven't found yet. --John Nagle (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did some more cleanup; I think all the Rockwick stuff is now gone.

The whole Proof of funds / "standby letter of credit" industry seems to be a scam. I found a cite in FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin and quoted it in the Wikipedia article. The Google search results for "proof of funds" are just hysterical. Million Dollar Funding says they will not only provide a billion dollars in (fake?) funding in 48 hours, but will throw in a trip to Vegas and $500 spending money. They don't have a street address and the contact is a Gmail address. AltaDenver at least has a street address, which can be seen in Google Street View. [3] They need to clean out their garage. Confirmed Funds shows a striking office building on their contact page, but Google shows a small tract house at their address.[4] Two other firms have addresses at Mail Boxes Etc. I have yet to find a "proof of funds" service with anything like a legitimate real-world office. --John Nagle (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and try to block me. Come on, I dare you. Alertedtrends (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] ~~~~~

76.117.247.55 (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you recently nominated School of the Holy Child, Angeles, Inc. for deletion under G11, and then also nommed the redirect under the same criteria. But the criteria you should have used is G8 (a page which is dependent on a page which doesn't exist, has been deleted, or is currently nominated for speedy deletion). Also, you probably don't need to tag redirects as admins should check for those when deleting. Keep up your patrolling :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been a case of simultaneous convergence of multiple hungry editors upon a single piece of tasty spam. The article was a bona-fide G11 case when I hit the Twinkle CSD button, but some time in the handful of seconds between when the process was initiated and when it finished, Porturology pressed "Save page" on his/her computer to finish turning the "article" into a redirect (funny). Twinkle seems to have not been perturbed by the edit conflict that would have thrown; I wonder if that's a bug or a feature. --Dynaflow babble 07:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry I didn't spot that before. About Twinkle, I always have peeps editing article right after me, or warning user who pages I tag because Twinkle tried to tag at the same time, not a major problem, but should be easy enough to fix if someone gets around to it - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "whilst" isn't a part of an "international variety of English" (whatever that means); it is archaic and most manuals of style specifically proscribe its use. I am going to change your edit back now, and I hope that in the future you learn the difference between terms appropriate for an encyclopedia and colloquialisms. Whilstdestroyer (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Whilst" as a conjunction is acceptable usage in British English, and as long as the usage remains acceptable in that (major) dialect, it should not be arbitrarily "corrected" to the standard of another variety of English (as an American, I cringe at it too every time I chance to read The Economist). On the shiny-happy-public-relations level, the reason we say we make sure to respect each other's national varieties of English has to do with mutual respect and fellowship and whatnot. However, the very pragmatic real reason we're so anal about dialect-switching is that it can lead very quickly down a rather slick slope. Can you image the edit-wars and drama that would result if we allowed editors to debate the relative merits of "curb" versus "kerb" or "aeroplane" versus "airplane?" I don't even want to consider what would happen if we opened up, as a legitimate subject for debate, whether periods/full-stops belong inside or outside quotation marks. Please understand, giving each other's regional linguistic eccentricities a pass holds back much more serious problems than the occasional annoyance of running across an archaic -- to us -- word usage.
I will revert your reversion and ask you to reconsider your position. If you are still trenchantly set on eliminating "whilst" from Wikipedia, I will not re-revert if you undo me on this change. You should be forewarned, though, that what you seem intent on doing, judging by your username, will run up against a long-established and well-reasoned consensus at the Project, and your mission will likely face insurmountable difficulties as a result. Happy editing. --Dynaflow babble 08:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos, you have been included in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, it is hoped we can achieve a lasting solution. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the conversion to trad. characters + quotation marks was an accident.

The fault lies with my Firefox plugin, Tong Wen Tang (which you may have heard of). It automatically converts a page's contents from simplified into traditional Chinese. What probably happened was all the text in the text box got converted as well when I got to the edit page.

My intention was to add a wiki-link for Hong Kong -- you'll see that, in the article's first paragraph, a link was added for Macau but not Hong Kong, and this was fixed in my edit. It was such a small edit that I didn't bother to preview it or to log in and leave an edit summary.

142.151.187.35 (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay; that's cool, then. Thanks for letting me know what was up. I usually recommend using preview for all edits, but to tell you the truth, the changes were subtle enough -- and far enough away from your intended edit -- that you probably wouldn't have been able to notice the weird, unintended changes without looking carefully at the diff afterwards. Anyway, thank you very much for the helpful edit. Have you considered getting a username? --Dynaflow babble 01:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: It was the persistent additions to Edward Low that prompted the block. It has been going on since at least February. These two edits [5] [6] also compare to 24.119.241.43 (talk · contribs), one of the IPs that has been trying to add in the Edward Low thing. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You can't just add categories arbitrarily because you feel that Cho was "American enough." Nationality is a binary thing: yes or no. If Cho were to have traveled to England, what passport would he have used? He would have used a South Korean one.

Nationality is not a squishy, subjective thing. Ethnicity or culture may be, but not nationality.

To illustrate further: I may think that Fargo, North Dakota should be listed as a Canadian city because, after all, it is really cold in the winter and they like hockey there, but that doesn't make Fargo a "city in Canada." Close, but no cigar.

Penser (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)penser[reply]

See my explanation at Talk:Seung-Hui Cho#Categories and Cho's "Americanness". I think you misapprehend the purpose of the cat pages. --Dynaflow babble 03:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo! you just marked AgX (software) for deletion. Please check the talk page. DrProfAlb (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the notability criteria at WP:N and WP:PRODUCT; you will also find suggestions on how to assert the notability of the product (if it has any). An article absolutely needs to assert the notability of its subject. Good luck, and feel free to ask me for help if you get stuck on anything. --Dynaflow babble 16:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I appreciate you getting in touch with me. Honestly, since watching Flamingo Fortune here in Florida and getting episodes of The Big Spin in a tape-trade, I've come to respect local game shows – which includes Sqrambled Scuares.

• "Is this show more than what it appears to be: a cable-access game show in a tiny market?" -- Not from what I can tell. It's still notable, since pretty much all local "celebrities" have played on the show (which, of course, is a staple of most any game show).
• "Does it have non-trivial, third-party coverage in reliable sources?" -- Well, I went and did a Google search on the series. While most results were videos swiped from the show's own website and others were duplicates of the game's Wikipedia article, there were some third-party sources.

• • GoBlueRidge.net, a service to the High Country, has an article dated May 26, 2009 regarding radio personalities Ashley Wilson (100.7 Mac-FM) and Jeffrey Wills (Highway 106.1) on Episode #359 (aired the previous night, May 25).
  • High County Press, established May 5, 2005, has an article dated January 11, 2007 regarding the filming of Episode #200 (the earliest episode available for viewing). Interestingly, the article mentions the production staff (I don't know if it has changed since then) and that Sqrambled Scuares actually started in Greensboro on November 5, 1999.
  • The Appalachian Online, a student newspaper founded in 1934(!), had an article the night of the taping talking about how contestants are chosen, some of the specials the show had previously, and noting that the series hasn't quite reached the status of some game show based out of California.

So maybe Sqrambled Scuares isn't well-known outside of North Carolina, but does that make it any less of a game show? No. Does that make it any more deserving of a deletion? Absolutely not. If Wikipedia failed to recognize the show, users from North Carolina might recreate the article or otherwise file a complaint. I will wager that, like any long-running game show, some North Carolinans have not known life without Sqrambled Scuares.

So I hope you understand where I'm coming from, here – it's an American game show, and its article should stay on Wikipedia – but it's still your choice whether you want to submit the article for deletion, man. Have a good day. :-) Daniel Benfield (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I still feel a bit iffy about the show's notability, you make a decent case for its being at least de jure notable, so I'll let it be. Thanks for hunting down those third-party sources. --Dynaflow babble 11:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You grabbed a graphic off my page for copyright infraction, and alas. upon studing the policy and the photo you were correct. It was an Alex Grey painting, and I looked long for a painting of his on Wiki, and that was the only one I found. If you don't know Grey's work, you may be in for a treat if you have a few minutes to look at his websites, etc. But for catching my error, I thank you. I like your user page opening, a big fan of the good Emperor as well. Aleister Wilson (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to meet another, fellow admirer of St. Norton the First. I'm sorry to have had to make your userpage less pretty, but the rules are the rules, and without them there would be chaos . . . and we couldn't have any of that now, could we? In truth, I noticed this plea for help and, resolving to pitch in by knocking out a few of the hundreds of WP:FUC'ing problems listed, picked your userpage entirely at random. Image policy is often a headache to deal with, but I'm glad there are no hard feelings for my having given you enticement to venture into the turgid morass that is WP:NFC. Cheers. --Dynaflow babble 04:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for uploading File:Execution in China.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polylepsis (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overruled. --Dynaflow babble 07:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Execution in China.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Zhonghuo (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:University of California, Santa Cruz/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:SFFD logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dynaflow! My name is Mono and I represent the WikiProject Desk at the Signpost. Mabeenot recommended that I contact you, so I wanted to invite you to participate in the Signpost's upcoming report on WikiProject Universities. This is a wonderful opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. If you'd like to join in, I've posted interview questions here. Thank you!  ℳono 

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Mono at 21:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, Dynaflow! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dynaflow,

I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the next wiki-meetup happening in SF. It'll be located at our very own Wikimedia Foundation offices, and we'd love it if some local editors who are new to the meetup scene came and got some free lunch with us :) Please sign up on the meetup page if you're interested in attending, and I hope to see you soon! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Dear Dynaflow, I was wondering if you would be willing to reevaluate a page I've been working on that is consistent with the interests you discussed on the Wikiproject: SF Bay Area page. The page is Touro University California. I've recommended it (admittedly prematurely) for good article status in the past but I've made significant improvements to it and think it can at least go up to B class now from its current C class. If you are willing to reassess it and offer feedback on how to further improve the article it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather ill equipped at present, time-wise, to really get involved in an intensive assessment effort -- I have a little over 2,000 pages of dense legal material to read through before my 2L classes begin on 4 September. I think your article is coming along well, but there is a lot more flesh that could be put on its bones. I would look to an article on an analogous institution (graduate-level, concentration on medical disciplines, component of a larger university system, etc.) and use the set of elements you find in that article as a template or checklist for Touro's article. Take a look at University of California, San Francisco (B-class). Best of luck. --Dynaflow babble 06:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might want to revisit this edit, Dynaflow. If you are quoting directly from the source, you need to add quotation marks. If you are paraphrasing, you will need to redact the info, as it comes across as evaluative speculation - something we cannot have in a BLP. Because this is a BLP, I need to revert this edit until you can either properly attribute the comments or find reliable sources that state what you have added. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source was contained within the <ref> tags you rolled back with the rest of my edit; there is also no reason not to paraphrase an accurate statement which properly cites its authority, instead of quoting verbatim from the source in every instance that gives off the scent of controversy. The alternative would be to turn every article on any halfway-interesting living person into a WP:QUOTEFARM.

I think you misunderstand how WP:BLP is supposed to be applied in this sort of circumstance. Just because the edit happened to be made in an article about a living person doesn't mean the information added was necessarily about the living-person subject of the article. Read my edit carefully. It pertains more or less entirely to the Disney board and its travails in court after Ovitz's departure in order to add background to the article. The BLP policy does not apply to corporate persons (see Wikipedia:BLP#Legal persons and groups).

I take exception to your characterization of my fairly vanilla gloss of a court's long-winded exoneration of the Disney board of directors as being "overly disparaging," and I am completely at a loss as to how a citation, down to the page in a novella-length opinion, of a decision of the Delaware Supreme Court (which is more or less the final word in American corporate law) can be seen as screaming out for "better attribution." You can't get much more reliable than a primary-source document that also happens to be The Law.

I ask that you re-read WP:BLP, re-read my edit to Michael Ovitz, and restore my contribution. Thank you. --Dynaflow babble 05:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - Sorry for the late notice, but since you have yourself tagged as living in the Bay Area, I thought you might appreciate notification that we’re having an event Saturday! It’ll be held at Hoyt Hall, an all-women's house of the Berkeley Student Cooperative from 3 to 6 pm tomorrow. The main event page is here. Anyone is welcome to show up, but we’re expecting a significant number of people to come who have literally never edited Wikipedia before. If you’re an experienced Wikipedian who would be able to provide useful help to some of the newbies, your presence would be especially appreciated (and it might be a good idea for you to show up at 2 or 2:30 instead of three. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC) I’m AWB’ing this message to all Wikipedians who have tagged themselves in the bay area. I’m sorry if the message isn’t of interest to you; feel free to delete it. I’ll be unlikely to send future messages in a similar way, but if really don’t want to receive future messages of this sort, please let me know. [reply]

Thank you for uploading File:SFSD lo-res patch.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I don't really recall where exactly that image came from; it's been over six years since I uploaded it. I would agree that whoever put the public domain template on the image page did so in error, because the image is effectively a trademark/logo. The fair-use rationale that accompanied my initial upload of the image was valid at the time. I'm not sure what has changed in the meantime (I've been busy with law school and, of late, working for the US Army Corps of Engineers), but I'm sure that if you know the current state of the rules, you can bring the original fair-use rationale up to modern standards. As for the source, why not just use the logo's owner, whose name appears prominently in the image itself?

I'll leave this in your court, so fix the image-attribute template if you please. Just remember, the image enhances the Encyclopedia, and the readers should not be deprived of the value it provides if there is any valid justification for it to stay. Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 18:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SFSD lo-res patch.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dynaflow. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:History of San Francisco has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am currently revamping the UCSF project. I created lots of pages and added a lot of content, but there is so much still to do. I saw that you are part of the SFBA task force, so I thought you might be interested and I wanted to invite you to collaborate once more. In particular, we need to add content, do maintenance, and we really would benefit from pictures, so if you are in SF and could help that would be great. Thanks!Eccekevin (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dynaflow! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject University of California, San Francisco, an outreach effort which aims to support development of UCSF related articles in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants, check out our To Do list, and join the discussion on our talk page. Thanks!!!

IN particular, I noted that on the SFBA page you expressed interest in educational institutions and UCs. In that case, I feel UCSF is a perfect project, It is a great and proud part of SF and the UC system, but it is woefully underrepresented online. Eccekevin (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dynaflow. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dynaflow. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article University of California, Santa Cruz Fire Department has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG without sufficient in-depth, independent sourcing.

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. User:Namiba 12:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:UCSCFD logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:UCD Shields cropped.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused crop, no indication of possible future use.

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dynaflow! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]