User talk:Terraxos/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Civility in AfDs
Could you try to be more considerate on the other sie in debates, and those who've built the work you comment on? Your enraged outburst in the gory death scene AfD made me want to cry. --Kizor 12:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm sorry for getting so angry on the 'list of gory death scenes' AfD - I was tired and frustrated, but that doesn't make it appropriate behaviour. I may go back and edit what I wrote now to make it more civil, and I'll definitely try to keep my editing WP:COOL in future. I hope this makes up for any hurt I may have caused. Terraxos 19:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's a great sign of character to eat one's words. I have no hard feelings.
I was planning to discuss your argument in detail, but that fell by the wayside what with the AfD's closing and all. As it is, I'm wondering if you're up for doing so now as preliminary research for my upcoming plan to bring the article to the film wikiproject and, with any luck, hammer out a version that addresses the grievances. --Kizor 23:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You might like to know that this incident inspired #161 on Raul's laws. (Take it as a compliment.)
At the time, I'd been embroiled in an incendiary "discussion" for weeks - possibly months - and seen prestigious editors on the other side, admins and former admins, declare their contempt for anyone who learns the wrong way from the encyclopedia, explode in expletives and insults and, in one case, declare themselves one of the few true wikipedians tasked with protecting the site from users and administrators who do not understand it like his kin does. (Yes.) Having someone actually apologize did wonders for my blood pressure, not to mention idealism... The ability to co-operate and compromise is more important than brilliant editing skills, and as the project develops, it will become ever more so. --Kizor 14:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Re: a gift for a recent comment you made...
I thought you should get one of these things due to this
slakr has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Cheers :) --slakr 04:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Class Act
You're a class act. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, and thank you for your awareness of what you know, and what you don't. Antelan talk 03:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with the above. That was a very thoughtful comment you posted on SA's talk page. Let's hope he returns. It might even be worth reviving the "expert policy" that he long sought. Eusebeus 17:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion welcome at deletion review for Plot of Les Mis
After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables closed as a deletion, I'm challenging the way the closing administrator acted as in violation of Wikipedia rules. Your participation is welcome at that discussion, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 14. Please keep in mind that only arguments related to either new information or to how Wikipedia rules were violated or not violated in closing the discussion will be considered. It isn't a replay of the original AfD. I'm familiar with WP:CANVASSING and I am alerting everyone who participated in that discussion to the deletion review. I won't contact anyone again on this topic, and I apologize if you consider this note distracting. Noroton 04:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't Destroy
I responded to your comment at [Destroy]. Fresheneesz 20:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
RE: AfDs of Warcraft articles
Didn't find the link to it. I'll be sure to go for it next time, as if I attempt to nominate a lot at once, I'll get attacked for bad faith nominations.
By the looks of it, it is obviously cluttered, and they still managed to make individual articles for them, gah. IAmSasori 14:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Wales national rugby union team GA assessment
Hi, thanks for the assessment. I believe I had addressed all your concerns. Please see the article talk page. Thanks. - Shudde talk 03:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
R&I – a new approach
R&I has been protected for a breather while we try to form some consensus as to the direction. In the interim we have set up a “sandbox” at: User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound. Moonriddengirl is a neutral admin who has set up the space where we can work on the text section by section; this allows us to have a talk page for the micro project. So far JJJamal, Futurebird and I have made suggested changes with additions in bold and deletions in strikeout. This section and its talk page is an experiment in trying to come together as a group on a focused area. If it works we’d like to approach Guy, the admin who has protected the page, to insert our work-product into the protected article and then take on another section. I would really like to get your feedback on this so that we can demonstrate a consensus. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 19:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Template:Dominionism
Hi Terraxos. The Template:Dominionism TfD, on which you commented, has been closed with no consensus (default to keep). Although the TfD debate touched on several issues regarding the form the infobox should now take, much seems unresolved. I invite you to participate in further discussion on this topic. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Don't be inconsiderate
Thanks for the vote of support! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi!
I smiled when your name was similar to mine. Just thought I'd stop in to say hi :P (Terra Xin (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC))
""Unreferenced" tag
We usually don't add this tag to stub articles. `'Míkka>t 16:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
No big harm. It is just it is very easy to litter a microarticle with all kind of big tags: surely a stub is prone to have numerous problems. On the other hand, if you see a dubious statement in a stub, it is quite OK to tag it, explaining in the talk page the reason of suspicions. `'Míkka>t 16:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that in your self-admitted zeal to tag other people's work, you put a little more homework into what it is that you are doing. If you're going to question other people's work, you might want to be prepared to defend this. --Achim (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Whodunnit and how???
"I realise I might be violating WP:FORUM a bit here, but I think these are genuine serious problems with this hypothesis, and would like to see them included in the article. Terraxos (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)" %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% You're English, aren't you? "realise" %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% I'm going to answer your questions, even if you don't think that's possible. I'd recommend looking at the video 9/11 Mysteries to get a sense of the flavor of the controlled demolition arguments. . The way you make money in business is to find a need and fill it, right? The World Trade Center was a white elephant. The building was contaminated with spray-on asbestos insulation throughout, and that asbestos had to be removed for health reasons. The offices were unpleasant and, in some technical ways, obsolete. The State of New York ordered some of its bureaucracies to move into the building to help the city out economically, since many businesses had no interest in locating there. . It would cost more to remove the asbestos than to demolish the building. The Port Authority applied for a permit for a controlled demolition. It was denied due to the dangers involved. Now, it would cost more to build scaffolding and demolish the buildings by hand than it had cost to build them in the first place. The state of New York ordered some of its bureaucracies to move into the undesirable building to help out economically, since many businesses had no interest in locating there. . Along came Larry Silverstein. He signed a long-term lease, voidable if the buildings were damaged by terrorists. He took out a big insurance policy to make big money if the buildings were attacked by terrorists. During the next six weeks, according to 9/11 Mysteries, businesses were moved around in the building, creating several completely vacant floors. Suddenly, there was dust everywhere, and a lot of noise coming from the vacant floors. The bomb-sniffing dog patrols were stopped. One of the elevators was "disabled" the entire time. Covertly operated, the elevator could be used to take, for example, thermite, or other explosives, to core columns on every floor, if necessary, along with radio- controlled detonators. . Over six weeks, a dozen or two people could bring in a few tons of thermite to a sub-basement level, and up the "broken" elevator. Some of the security guards would have had to be in on it, but they worked for a company directed by George Bush's brother. No problem there. The last weekend, cameras and alarms were turned off while "engineers" swarmed all over the building. They left the doors to the roof locked when they were done. . Now, where would they find a dozen or two "engineers" to plant explosives? During the Reagan administration, many of the tasks which were formerly done by the CIA were farmed out to new companies. Then, we have new companies like Blackwater. Then, we have commandos in the Israeli army. Some people in the governments of Pakistan, Spain, Great Britain and several other countries were probably part of the "rogue network" that may have been responsible for the demolitions. There were LOTS of sources for people to do that, and some of them could always be murdered afterwards to keep them quiet. According to CBS news, 180 Americans commit suicide every week, and 2/3 of them are recent war veterans. Many other people die in car accidents. Airplanes crash in various parts of the world. Killing the grunts is not a problem. . Is that the way it happened? Who knows? All we really know is that we have been lied to with an explantion with more holes in it than a ton of Swiss cheese. Is Bush a bad guy? Is Bush a good guy? We don't have enough information even to evaluate him. All of this "state secrets" nonsense has to be done away with. . How long could they keep something this big a secret? Try forty years. According to deathbed confessions by Cord Meyer and E. Howard Hunt, LBJ ordered the murder of JFK. LBJ's lawyer wrote a book saying the same thing. LBJ's mistress made public statements backing them up. Her illegitimate son by LBJ tried to get some of his inheritance from LBJ's widow. He ignored warnings, filed a lawsuit and suddenly disappeared. He turned up, three months later, in a military hospital, dying of cancer. All a big coincidence, of course. Wowest (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Just thought I'd add to what Wowest has said. He is right that the bomb sniffer dogs were discontinued two weeks before 911 and that the alarms and surveilance cameras were turned of for several days due to work being done. There is also the fact that several times in the week before 911 evacuation drills left the buildings empty for extended periods. This is plenty of time to plant explosives. Experts estimate that 12 tons is enough (with luck) and up to several hundred tons to do it "by the book" and 2 men could plant 12 tons in a few hours (it can be poured like a liquid into the columns). All the central columns are hollow and easily accessable without the need to poke a hole in anything. In fact it is common practice to build them with access plates for just such a purpose. Another little known fact is that some skyscrapers are actually built with explosives for CD already in place (it saves a LOT of money later and is completely safe). Because the plans for WTC were lost no one knows if they were rigged this way although due to age it is unlikely (though not impossible). CD is entirely speculative and while highly unlikely is not impossible and therefore until evidence discounts it CD can not be ruled out. This is the mistake supporters of the official theory make....instead of finding evidence for the OT they contend they do not need to because CD is impossible. I doubt Cd myself but do not rule it out as there are too many unanswered questions. I suspect we will not know the truth for a very long time if ever. Wayne (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Cyber Monday
An article that you have been involved in editing, Cyber Monday, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber Monday (2nd nomination). Thank you. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 09:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Article
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Supermarine Spitfire you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. In the meantime, I encourage you to find an article that you feel you could constructively review to help pass along the benefit of such reviews. HopsonRoad (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Terraxos,
I'm checking in to let you know that the very worthy and interesting article you nominated, Supermarine Spitfire, didn't meet GA standards—yet. I'm confident that, with some cooperation among the contributors, it can be brought up to standard. My top three concerns were:
-
- References—Clearly the article draws on some great authorities on the topic. Unfortunately, there's usually no footnote in any given paragraph to identify who that authority is. If the paragraph changes sources, there should be as many footnotes. I recommend identifying who the original contributor of each section is and having them assist in the proper use of citations.
- Images—Several images had questionable licensing.
- Stability—The article seemed still to be under active development and not quite "settled out."
I'd be happy to come back and continue a review, when you or your fellow editors feel that the article is ready. I believe that it has strong potential to become a very worthy GA.
Sincerely, HopsonRoad 18:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
KKK article
Could you check out my comments at Talk:Ku_Klux_Klan#Recent_changes_by_Parkwells. An editor has made a ton of edits to the article in the last few weeks which, IMHO, do not improve the featured article and include too many POV issues. Could you examine the issue and comment, if you feel like it, since you've been so involved in the article in the past. Thanks.--Alabamaboy (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Royal Burial Ground
Hello Terraxos; this lame war ain't over yet, take a peek. GoodDay 21:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I thought the war was over too. I'm just as surprised as you are, that it flared up again with a new twist. GoodDay 17:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 |
We would like to invite you to join WikiProject Czech Republic, an attempt to build and maintain a large and neutral database of the Czech Republic-related articles on Wikipedia. To join, simply add your name to the members section of WikiProject Czech Republic. |
≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 18:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Strange edits by Smackbot
I just reverted a couple of edits by Smackbot, where it was messing up subtitles by replacing 'Operations==' with 'operations'. See diffs here and here. Could you please work out what the glitch is here, and try to fix it? Thanks in advance. Terraxos 20:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I too have just noticed this error in a bunch of US Navy ship articles such as [1]. I've been trying to cleanup these articles myself, however it seems I might be doing so for a while. Would it be possible to get SmackBot to correct this problem? -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes of course. Rich Farmbrough, 22:29 3 December 2007 (GMT).
- Now running. Rich Farmbrough, 09:42 4 December 2007 (GMT).
- All done. Rich Farmbrough, 18:52 5 December 2007 (GMT).
Redirect of Gare du Nord riot in Paris
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Gare du Nord riot in Paris, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Gare du Nord riot in Paris is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Gare du Nord riot in Paris, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal
Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [[2]] Jmegill (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
That's grrrrrreat!
 |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
| For your umpteen-million tags on articles that need them. My mother thanks you. My father thanks you. My sister thanks you. And I thank you. —ScouterSig 16:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
- Thanks! You know, I used to think barnstars were a bit of a waste of time, but now I've got one they suddenly don't seem too bad. :) I appreciate it. Terraxos (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I ran across a huge swath of contribs of yours in Asimov's Foundation related articles. I've built more of a 'master list' of pages on my subpage; check it out, perhaps. I also decided that because I'm on winter break, I'll reread all of those books, since it's been 10 years or so. Maybe then I'll have something to add, or maybe will be able to merge a bunch together. —ScouterSig 19:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think merging some of them together would probably be the best solution. I don't really want to see so much good content deleted; but the problem is, most of those pages have no references at all, and are written entirely in in-universe style with no claim made to real-world notability. This is a perennial problem for Wikipedia's articles about fictional topics, not just the Foundation universe; and there's much dispute over what is appropriate in articles about fiction, and what exactly should be done about it. See WP:FICT, and the extensive discussions there, for more details. Terraxos (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I ran across a huge swath of contribs of yours in Asimov's Foundation related articles. I've built more of a 'master list' of pages on my subpage; check it out, perhaps. I also decided that because I'm on winter break, I'll reread all of those books, since it's been 10 years or so. Maybe then I'll have something to add, or maybe will be able to merge a bunch together. —ScouterSig 19:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Unreferenced tags on Playboy List pages
On 8 Dec 2007 you added Unreferenced tags to five pages that were merely lists pointing to other Wikipedia article pages, as a cross reference. Why do you think that those pages lack references? All you have to do is click on any page refered to there, and you get that page which confirms the particular heading on the original list (those pages ought to have refs). Are you actually expecting that someone will add individual refs for each issue of the magazine monthly back to 1953, merely to add unnecessary references? (No one has such a complete collection to be able to do that anyway.) Although I applaud you for adding unref'd tags to real articles that need refs, pages that are simply cross reference lists to other pages don't really need specific references, as long as they're consistant to the pages referred to. Thanks. GreatScott (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- After taking a look at WP:LIST, you're right - such articles don't need cites for every single member, only for those that are potentially controversial and need to be proved. That's probably not the case for the Playboy lists, so I apologise for tagging them 'unreferenced' unnecessarily. Feel free to remove the tags, and I'll avoid adding them to similar lists in future. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Terraxos (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick review -- I'll pull the unref'd tags. GreatScott (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Copyright violation at Charles Kuentz
Hi Terraxos, thanks for the message. I can't remember why I did no more than leave a note -- probably because I wasn't certain it was (entirely) a copyvio and didn't have time to research it properly. You're quite right of course that there shoudn't be such copyvios hanging around unnoticed for months, I suspect it happens a lot. Next time I'll know to go to the Copyright Problems page. Flapdragon (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Graduated Random Presidential Primary System Wikification
Evenin' Terraxos. I saw you left a 'wikify' tag on the Graduated Random Presidential Primary System entry I wrote. So I gave it a quick once-over and linked it up. Just wanted to run it by you and see if it passes muster now. Keep on gnomin'...
SenorCrunchy (talk) 07:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Rolfing
Thanks for your comments on the intro to Rolfing. The response of naive readers to an article is very valuable to editors who often lose sight of just how specialised their own knowledge has become. Rolfing could be described as including a lot of massage that is directed to changing the way the recipients body/nervous system responds to weight/force. Rolfing aims to have balance being used and just the necessary muscles for a movement being called into action rather than tightening up lots of unnecessary muscles.
The difficulty in getting this as an intro is that what I've just written may be difficult to source and it reads very poorly. And other editors probably think the present intro sounds "more encyclopaedic". SmithBlue (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: Intex
I've nominated the article for AFD instead of prod because the version I submitted is substantially different from the article as it appears today. Please comment on the AFD if you have an opinion, and thanks for letting me know about the prod. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned article on Int'l reaction to Bhutto assassination
Terraxos - I went ahead and removed the orphan template you placed, as the situation is still developing, and other articles may still be linked to this one. Just wanted to let you know. Edit Centric (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, I'm naturally a world events hound, and had the entire day free to devote to the story. Edit Centric (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Shout out
Thanks again for all the assists on Benazir Bhutto, you made my user page, and my day! Edit Centric (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
E. V. Ramasami Naicker
Page unprotected. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
ghits
Number of ghits is not a deletion consideration--you need to examine them to see if there is any information given. And it is particular irrelevant for people from India--the internet has much lower penetration. But examining them, I find that they are essentially all wikipedia mirrors, so the deletion seems reasonable. can stand; I am adding a second deletion reason. . 13:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of HotBasic
An article that you have been involved in editing, HotBasic, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HotBasic (2nd nomination). Thank you. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Certification listing - unreferenced
As my name was used without my permission by User:Ahering@cogeco.ca in reverting your unreferenced tag in Certification listing, I want to set the record straight. I agree this article is not properly referenced. Fireproeng (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Terraxos, just so you know, User:Ahering@cogeco.ca has a history of this kind of behavior. He knows a lot about the stuff he writes about, but after a lot of tries at educating him about proper WP intent and protocols, he still writes unreferenced articles that are not in accordance with WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#OR, WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#MANUAL. Additionally, he can be rude and will personally attack anyone who disagrees with his edits. As my personal expertise overlaps some of the areas in which he edits, I can tell you he is often correct in his technical knowledge when he sticks to objective issues (as oppposed to personal essays), but he continues to advocate that this personal knowledge is more important than proper WP protocols. Good luck. Fireproeng (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestions, I would hate to end up with the guy blocked, because he does bring a lot of good knowledge to the project. It would be great to have his energy channeled to confrom to WP protocols, so maybe I'll Request for comment. Cheers. Fireproeng (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Deaf Wikipedians
Okay, I get the message. I did not know that someone tried to create the category about deaf Wikipedians before me. I never understand why they make reason against this but I hope they did not use this excuse as they discriminated us as deaf people. I hope someday Wikipedia will give a permission to allow Deaf Wikipedians into a category. There are userboxes that do not have Indiana Jones fans and others that comes with categories. I created few but i wonder if I have to make combined of userbox and category. Cculber007 (talk} 09:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Bush crime family
Thanks for your note. Yes, I can't think of any legitimate use for this redirect (and if someone does need it, they'll take the protection off) so I will make a note to do that. The reason I'm not doing it immediately is because for some reason I don't seem to be protecting pages properly -- the last few times I've done it, it hasn't worked -- so I'm going to consult an expert before protecting any more pages. But once I know what I'm doing wrong, I'll protect that page from recreation. I appreciate your bringing it to my attention. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Jon Hess
An article that you have been involved in editing, Jon Hess, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Hess. Thank you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Tucker Max
Am trying to fix the article as per your comments. Would really appreciate any help or advice you could offer. That controversy section is an abortion. TheRegicider (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Scrabulous
Hi, I saw you moved the clean up tag on Scrabulous from the talk page to the article itself. I'm curious if you'd provide some input as to what you'd like to see in the article. I started a section for it on the talk page as I'd like to improve the article but with the game in limbo now, I'm not sure what should be added that won't be changing on the fly. Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
FlightMemory
Me again, this time with a feedback/help request rather than a question. I saw you put the orphan tag on FlightMemory and I agree, however that's one part of an article that I'm not sure how to fix. There are some ties with other articles, especially FlyerTalk, however I don't know that there are enough. This article survived a PROD (baseless, IMO) and AfD but I'm starting to wonder if I should let it go. Opinion? Suggestions? I don't really know who to ask but I thought I'd ask you since you stopped by. Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I think part of the issue with FlightMemory is that while it some press in the time following its English language debut in April 2007, there wasn't sustained press interest. It's still growing and used quite frequently by the frequent flyer crowd, which is why I'm thinking of the possible FlyerTalk connection. I'll continue to think of how it could be connected to others. Thanks for your help! Travellingcari (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Music of Your Life
I saw your tag just today, and I made the first step toward improving the article, since I'm the one who made the greatest contribution. I had a hard time finding the article I used as a source. I'm sorry if that article doesn't meet the Wikipedia standards, but given the difficulty in finding it, and the fact that Wikipedia needed historical background on the format, it was the best I could do. Unfortunately, the articles from publications don't quite provide all the detail that the other article does. It is entirely possible that the history posted on the Music of Your Life website appears in a proper publication somewhere, and I just haven't found it yet. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I wasn't worried about deletion, although I was concerned. Very little of what I have contributed has what would be considered acceptable sources. But I'm working on that. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shenandoah Acres
Please see my comment in the AFD. Thanks Secret account 21:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama media controversy
Your nomination was speedy closed as I'd already nominated it the previous day. I've taken the liberty of transferring your comments to the earlier debate. Naturally, I think they're eminently sane, reasonable and well thought out. Losing this "vote" too, though, so far. Andyvphil (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Btw, is there a template pointing to the DRV that can be added to the AfD? Andyvphil (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I've trying (unsucessfully) to concentrate on the fact that the article deletion was out of policy rather than refight the AfD, but, fyi, the article as deleted, sans only categories, is available here [3]. I exported some material and have continued to work on it a bit as material I was unaware of has continued to show up... Andyvphil (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Re your nomination: I dunno if John Kerry has had anything to say on this. Bob Kerrey is prominent, though. And I made the same mistake when it first came up... Andyvphil (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. It reads "[John Kerry] described as 'disgusting lies' allegations on the internet about Obama's religion and record of public service.", so you were right the first time. The Guardian fellow is a careless writer, but better sources for this event can be found. Andyvphil (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
It means all the more, then. Thank you so much! Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 00:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Wiikipedian
My bad. Wikipedian 13:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Islamophilia
If there's consensus for a move, let me know and I'll make the change. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Sim et al.
Hi, Terraxos! Thanks for the thorough note. I don't really have a problem with the outcome of these AfDs, because the places, just like Sim, are so minor and insignificant, that either way would have been fine. It least a dozen or so similar substubs I prodded were not contested and are now gone :)
What I do have a problem with is the very same clause of the MOSDAB you quoted. I already tried bringing more attention to it, but, apparently, no one seems to have any trouble whatsoever with a clause that was proposed by one editor and back up by only three (!) other. Now we have situations when people quote that clause left and right without giving any thought as to how it got there. In my view, the clause it replaced was a much more reasonable approach to red links ("if an article could be written on that topic, then a red link on a dab page is fine"). I only wish I had enough time to contest this situation properly, but time recently is one luxury I cannot afford.
Anyway, it might have been interesting to see what would happen if you actually nominated an article like Kresty for AfD on the basis of it violating the redlink clause of the MOSDAB. Just for the experiment sake, I'd try to contest that AfD by stating that Kresty, in fact, is not a disambiguation page, but a set index article page (to which MOSDAB does not apply). Now, the set index clause of the MOSDAB is another thing that perpetually puzzles me. I am yet to see it used anywhere outside the Ships WikiProject, and in the absense of any guidelines regarding formatting/layout/etc. of such pages, it very much seems as an intentional loophole for cases when someone wants to keep something that is essentially a MOSDAB-noncompliant disambiguation page. The clause has been there forever, too; and I can only guess that people just glance over it without giving it much thought, simply because it is written so vaguely that it is even difficult to comprehend its intents and purposes.
Finally, as for Sim, Perm Krai, you could, technically, AfD it, but it will 100% survive, simply because "all locations are notable" and the stub is referenced and easily verifiable. With Kresty, in this form at least, there was a chance for the AfD to succeed (and indeed, some of the articles from the same bot-generated batch did get deleted without much fuss), but Sim technically meets all our criteria; it is just extremely hard to add anything else to that little that's already there.
Why am I writing all this? Basically, I just needed to vent some steam, I guess; maybe to raise awareness a little :) If disambiguation-related issues are something that interests you and if you have time to deal with them, you might want to look into the issues I described above. Otherwise, feel free to ignore this long rant. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
References
Please can you look at the references section before you mark something as unreferenced! (-hou)--MacRusgail (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Removed your tag
I undid your change to Dropbear (software), and left my reasoning at Talk:Dropbear (software). FWIW, you are one busy contributor! I really appreciate all the effort you are putting in. Marc W. Abel (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Vicki Iseman
Hey -- I've initiated a discussion at Talk:Vicki Iseman#Coatrack -- please come and discuss. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 18:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Dropbear (software) tag update
Thanks for your kind reply, which I have answered at Talk:Dropbear (software). Marc W. Abel (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Serpent Seed
Hello! In December you tagged Serpent Seed for neutrality. As far as I can see that is the only real edit you made on the page. I have done a major edit on the article and think it is fairly balanced. I am going to remove your neutrality tag. If you choose to add it again please add comments on the discussion page to address your concerns so they can be corrected. Thanks Cool10191 (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
OLAP cube
Please don't erase the article. It's a good start. I will take it on myself to add the needed references to the article, although I don't know a lot about the subject (but do want to learn more about it). I will use this research bibliography as my primary source of articles OLAP Bibliography Kgrr (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Please remove the Source and References request from Nigel Benson
Hello, I have now added third-party references to the article on Nigel Benson. I shall add more later when I can. There are now sufficient to comply with the Wikipedia guidelines. Please, therefore, remove the reference request box at the top of the article that you added on January 15, 2008.
Susieabbott (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Susie AbbottSusieabbott (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Deep packet capture
Terraxos, could you take a look at the Deep packet capture article and give me a reading on what you think. The external link to dPacket.org does not seem to follow the guidelines on external references. I've had to deal with the same link in the Deep packet inspection article.Kgrr (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Fly-by tagging
Please stop the "fly-by tagging". If you dispute something in an article, then note that. Simply going along all articles in Wikipedia and pasting tags everywhere without working on the article, is completely useless and turns Wikipedia into a big mess. I suggest that you try to find more productive ways of contributing to Wikipedia, such as actually writing articles. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- As you write: "that all theoretically contentious material added to Wikipedia must be sourced." I am not disputing this at all. All theoretically contentious material. But please explain to me, exactly which part of Bernina Range do you consider to be 'theoretically contentious'? We are talking about plain facts here - an existing mountain range, the heights of the mountains there. These are plain geographic facts. Not every sentence in such an article needs an external source! That would be completely crazy, are you going to require a source for every single sentence on Wikipedia? As long as an article/sentence/fact is not 'theoretically contentious', there is no need to add an 'unreferenced' template there. Now those are the guidelines. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your understanding! Please keep up the good work. There is nothing wrong with placing this template at pages which might indeed have potentially contentious content. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The Proletariat
Hi, I did a bit of work on The Proletariat. It's not done, but I hope I've addressed your concerns Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Proletariat. Cheers, Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Moruth Doole
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Moruth Doole, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Moruth Doole. Rockfang (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
regarding your "prod-2" template
I didn't know there even was such a template. Thanks for the edumacation ;) --Rockfang (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Mellow
Since you commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harshing My Mellow (disambiguation), seven articles linking to Harshing My Mellow (disambiguation) have reappeared. Would you reconsider your comments? I can't but think that given more time more thngs will start to link to it again. My preference woould be to move Harshing My Mellow (disambiguation) to harshing your mellow. Thanks for looking. --evrik (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Orphan tag
Hi, although I agree my new article on Scramble (magazine) is orphaned, I'm not quite sure how to add links to other articles without being "accused" of spamming; this is just a magazine, like many others, most of which are orphaned too. I'm hoping inclusion in the different Categories might be sufficient. Your thoughts on this? Antheii (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK, then we agree on that :-) On the other hand, I've located quite some links to their website where they are quoted as reference. I hope nobody will disagree when I adjust those a little with a Wiki-link to this new article. You're OK when I remove your template after I've finished? Antheii (talk) (subscriber for over 25 years) —Preceding comment was added at 19:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
