User talk:ArcAngel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ArcAngel. |
 Archives |
|
Contents |
[edit] May 2008
I apologize for the changes on the Welsh Corgi, I was actually trying to do the changes on my Wiki, and did not notice I was making the change on the Corgis. Won't happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.170.66 (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] My RfA
Thank you for !voting in my Rfa. I hope I can learn and build from it. CJ2005B (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Amy Lau
I've declined your speedy request on Amy Lau, which should never have been made, as there's no possible way the article in the form you nominated it could ever have met any CSD criteria. Feel free to AfD it if you want, but (assuming even one of the assertions made in the article is true) I can't imagine it being deleted. — iridescent 22:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Jenny Boully
I'm confused. Is your job as a "Deletionist Wikipedian" to ensure that a wiki entry is as outdated and uninformative as possible? Is it your job to block the expansion of a stub article that begs readers to expand upon it? The information that you insist on keeping for this entry is six years old. The subject is the author of three books as well a chapbook--the last of which I didn't even have time to incorporate into the article before you deleted it. The current information predates even her first full-length publication. Please tell me, clearly and specifically, the problem with the new article, rather than speculating on whether I am another user and simply deleting my work209.134.40.63 (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I've returned the version that I worked on and plan to plan expand it. If there is a problem with the formatting or content or otherwise, please let me know before simply deleting my work--which, without any explanation from you, is tantamount to vandalizing. Thank you.209.134.40.63 (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've un-reverted your reversion to this article. There is no possibility that the "copyvio" you removed was any such thing - as a list of publications, of course it's going to be identical to the list of publications on other sites. Additionally, "References" is the correct header for the references section, not "Citations". While I agree the subject is borderline WP:N, your apparent constant reversions of anyone adding content to this page are starting to look like you're assuming bad faith. If you believe there's sockpuppetry going on, the place to raise this is WP:SSP or WP:ANI, not to start throwing accusations around just because two users edit the same articles. — iridescent 13:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fir Bhreige submission on 2008-04-28
Your comment at the bottom of this "declined" entry stated that it lacked verifiable, reputable third-party sources. There were in fact several verifiable, reputable third-party sources quoted in the submission - both as sources and footnotes. Not sure why they don't show up, but if you click the "edit" links, you will see them all. It is possible that the links are broken or somehow formatted incorrectly, but they are there, and they are indeed reputable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.229.166 (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like the sources were not formatted correctly. If those can be fixed, you can re-submit for another look. ArcAngel (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Unbelievable. There's nothing wrong with the source formatting. There's a bot that de-fangs the ref templates on the AFC page. The refs still exist in the article, as the editor points out, and will show correctly when the article is created. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sim City 3000 UK Edition
I am a unregistered user and today I tryed to create a article on Sim City 3000 UK Edition. You replied saying that the article already existed. I then tryed to find the article but was unable to. I wanted to hear your thoughts.
- See the Re-release section of SimCity 3000. The info is not notable enough to warrant its own article. ArcAngel (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Diana Mercado
I read your comment and disagree that she has not done anything of note. Over 5,000 people auditioned for this singing contest across the country and she reached the top 10. If your removal policy is this rigid, I will stop making contributions.
Hvrhon (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your assertion that she reached the Top 10 is false. She was eliminated just outside of the Top 10 on the March 22nd episode of the show you mentioned. ArcAngel (talk) (Review) 15:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] St. Mary Bishophill
Dear sir or Madam, I have tried twice to start an article about St. Mary Bishophill Junior. This is the second time it has not been accepted. The beginning of the text was copied from another website from Wikipedia, but I am trying to create a colaborative article with more sections than that bit, as you probably noticed when you checked the page. I'm sorry if it was misunderstood. The website has been already created in Asturian and Spanish, and the intention is to give it more contents in a collaborative way (between people from different countries). That's the reason why I haven't understood why this article has not been accepted for the second time. By the way, in the "declined article section", I cannot copy all the parts of the article I created. Only the first bit appears and no the other sections created ("How to get to St. Mary's", "External Links", "Sources", "References" and "See also") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.57.139.98 (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your attention.
- If you can include content that isn't copied from another Wiki or directly from another website, or doesn't duplicate the existing information in the article (which is what I saw in the External Links, Sources, and References you provided), it might stand a better chance of being accepted, . The "Directions" section, in my view, isn't suitable as directions can be had from Google quite easily. ArcAngel (talk) (Review) 20:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Don't mean to wikistalk you - I still have you watchlisted from our conversation above - but can I point out that "Copied from another wiki" is most definitely not grounds for deletion! We have entire articles translated from other-language wikis, and plenty of articles taken verbatim from non-Wikimedia wikis under GFDL or public-domain books (for example, the paraphilia articles lifted from Wipipedia or the religious articles from the Catholic Encyclopedia). — iridescent 20:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bad Mojo
I've reverted your edit on my article, which is an obvious attack when I insulted you. Gee, I notice a lot of negative comments on your talk page here. In fact they are almost ALL negative. Nobody is thanking you at all for a job well done. Hmm... Is there a pattern here? MiracleMat (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- It was removed not as an "attack" as you put it but it being against the policy I mentioned. The Edelbrock article is not about the ciry of Torrance, California, so the city seasl should not be in the infobox on that article. If you can point out a policy where including the city seal in that article's infobox is not just for decoration (as it appears to be here), then it can stay. ArcAngel (talk) (Review) 21:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rfb participation thanks
Hello, ArcAngel.
I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote, and no, I will not have the tools already :). Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AFC
[1] "Declined. We cannot accept unsourced suggestions or sources that are not reliable per the verifiability policy. Please provide reputable, third-party sources with your suggestions." Um, I provided reputable sources: Ian Jeffrey. The Photo Book, 2nd ed., London: Phaidon, 2000. (p. 343), and Benjamin Gennochio. "They Didn't Forget the Camera", New York Times, July 31, 2005. They're right there in the article. Explanation? 86.44.28.186 (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Forget it, I'm just going to resubmit and hope for a better reviewer. Please bear in mind for future trawls of AFC that articles with ref numbers and reflist or cite templates have sources. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RFA Thanks
Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RfA thank-spam
