User talk:Wafulz/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

← Archive 6 |
Archive 7
| Archive 8 →
Archive 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.

Contents

I request that Hibernian not be allowed to post on Technocracy related sites.

He has disregarded all attempts at compromise and logic. He continues to ruin by his edits the Technocratic movement material. He is linking over and over stuff that he wrote fromm his blog site TechCa. He has no regard for the page except as to his edits that are not done objectively. He wholesale reverts my edits. He puts up stuff that is totaly out of context to the page/pages.(skip sievert 21:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)) He also is resorting to defamation of character on the discussion page.(skip sievert 07:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

Sorry to bring this to your talk page again Wafulz, but... Skip, unfortunately it is you who are Uncompromising and Illogical, and also you who would ruin the article if left to run free. There's a very good reason why I am constantly reverting your edits, It's Baloney! Even after I made my arguments crystal clear on the talk page, you persist in making exactly the same bad edits and so, I must constantly revert it. Again as I thought I had made clear numerous times, I did not write any articles at Tech.ca, most of those links were written decades before I was even born! You accuse me of not being objective, anybody taking one look at your edits will see the utter Hypocrisy in that statement. If by "defamation of character" you mean stating the fact that you were expelled from Tech Inc. and are well known as a troll to everyone in the online community, then I stand by my statements. BTW two can play at the Banning game Skip, I'd ask that you be banned or blocked or whatever, but I'm pretty sure that's a lengthy and involved process, so I'm not sure if it would be worth it. Skip I've been contributing to the article for about a year now (don't know the exact time) and you come in do a load of crazy edits and then ask for me to be banned? Unbelievable!
Anyway Wafulz, if you can I'd like you to drop by the talk page again, and give your opinions on the various issues. --Hibernian 08:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
You are good at name calling Hibernian. That has little to do though with making accurate info. on this page. I would say you are the troll here. Yes Ross Murphy, or Hibernian you are the troll here. You have posted that type of troll stuff here and elsewhere on your blogging site. I have no reason to pick a fight. You have posted nasty stuff here. TechCA.(skip sievert 08:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

The links issue again

Wafulz can you please respond to my comments and questions about the links (and the article in general). I'm talking about Here (we need to get the links back pronto), and at the bottom of the page (about the citations). Also you may have to explain to Skip what in-line citations are, because he's now attempting to revert any sourcing I do. Thanks --Hibernian 03:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The 'sourcing' you are doing is to a blogging site with 4 people that publish their own material.

My edit is basically the same as wafulz except for a sentence I changed to what I think is more objective. The 'citations' you are giving are pointless. There is a link to their site in my edit. Any more material than given by Wafulz edit is extraneous. I have made comments on the page in question discussion.(skip sievert 12:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

Kelvin Owusu Bossman

Writing 101-reader shouldn't have to go to outside sources to find out more about the subject. They should be in the article itself. 172.136.4.96 13:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Taken to afd Maybe you can add some info to the article from all those google hits. You made minor improvements to the article but haven't made inroads on WHY he is notable: Honors, awards, records, etc. Postcard Cathy 13:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Smithsonian

Thanks for the heads up. Why weren't they just changed to a "fairusein" tag. It makes no sense to delete them. How do I see the list? I always imagine that as soon as I stop editing Wikipedia, all my work will be deleted since no one will be there to police it. I always hate the "delete instead of fix" mentality. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sidney Crosby

If we're not gonna recognize Brian Bellows' North Stars captaincy (because it was an interim-captaincy). Then all the -interim captains- should be removed from the 30 NHL team pages captains sections. We shouldn't have it both ways. GoodDay 16:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Or we could continue with the current process of marking them as "interim", which is a special designation distinct from an official non-temporary captain. I mean arguably Crosby was one of three interim captains last year when there were three A's but no C's.--Wafulz 16:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Bellows is mentioned (later) in the Crosby article, I can live with that. PS-The Penguins last season (2006-07) had 'only' alternate captains. This Crosby appointment has been difficult, I was rooting for Mark Recchi to get it (the Penguins captaincy). GoodDay 16:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Guriqbal Chahal

Hello,

This was an article about a poet and brief review of his book. He is a good poet and I happen to know him and little bit about his poetic background. The article was a review of just that.

Please consider rolling back.

Thanks.

The article was written in a very promotional and unencyclopedic tone- recreating it would require a 100% rewrite to fit neutrality policies and the manual of style. You'd be better off starting over with a new article. --Wafulz 19:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please delete this image

Please delete Image:Youtube screenshot profile.JPG. It was originally for a page that it got deleted from. So now it's just pointless. —Coastergeekperson04's talk@ 04:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My changes are not staying

Hi,

There are numerous errors on the Dominik Hasek wikipedia page, I have tried changing them plenty of times and when I come back to the page later they have been removed. I have created an account, I have listed sources, nothing works. Half of the page is opinions about his style and how he plays--I am an expert and have watched him his entire career, yet I am not allowed to alter the opinions of others that are represented as fact? I feel you do this man a disservice by allowing misinformation about events in his life to be read as though fact due to some technicality...I don't know what else I can do since none of my edits work. You say that NPOV is the issue, the page as is is not neutral, it is biased and contains several insinuations!!! The sources for what is written are editorial hearsay and nothing else! And yet, I am not allowed to make changes...all I can do is throw up my arms and hope few people this garbage--there are things you insist on keeping on the page that would not be found in an encyclopedia.

Cody

It's not editorial hearsay- many other people who have watched him have also edited this article (about five or six consistently, I believe), and it has been through several thorough peer reviews. Anyway, your last batch of edits were reverted because they were copied almost verbatim from another website- we can't have copyright infringement on articles. --Wafulz 17:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

IFC

Woo hoo! New to this.... apparently I got in a jam with copy and paste off a site. Reading would have helped there. Okay then, type it out only to see it deleted the next day. Too funny. Have to read again regarding speedy deletion notices and here I thought I was doing the right thing by self correcting the matter. Silly me... more to catch up on and perhaps before I break a few more rules the IFC lawyers which handle copyright stuff are probably better suited for this. Sorry about that lads got ahead of myself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjutant (talk • contribs)

RE: "Conicedence" in Hasek article

Well I thought it would be pure luck or strange that goalies would have the same goals against in a season. Though they may play about half of the year each, I wouldn't think two goalies would, also on the same team, give up the same amount of goals. In fact to sort the tie out, a possible tie break procedure should be who plays longer, though unfortunately the NHL didn't think if that. If that happened, Hasek would win it by a longshot (58 GP - 24.) --Hasek is the best 03:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ross continues to put up links to chat site

Wafulz I would hope that Hibernian could be stopped from wrecking the edits on any Technocracy related page in the future, and also not be allowed to 'edit' on the Technocratic movement page. You gave your explanation of why TechCa, TechVan, Technet, should not be included in the external links. You even gave a guideline in your edit telling people to not put up TechNet and also explained why the other links are not wiki appropriate. Ross/Hibernian/Icarus on the TechCa site and editor here is not interested in your suggestions and put all this stuff up again. Could you please intervene again ? I am going to revert things back to my edits again. Please prevent Ross and possibly Kolzene from interfering with this page again. Thankyou, (skip sievert 13:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Sock puppet of a user you blocked

I noticed that today you blocked IP user 167.104.6.43 for vandalism. Thanks for catching him; he made far more vandalism than reported in his user talk page.

You might want to keep an eye on user Jelld, as I believe he is a sock puppet for 167.104.6.43. Jelld's only contributions were creating and editing three hoax pages (Masetelli, Yurubarya, and See Morris "Great tribes of South America" P. 78 Nelson ,2001), along with linking them to the genuine Tambopata Province. The fake pages were further edited by 167.104.6.43, thus my suspicion. Thanks again for your work. Strodie 02:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

OI!

YOU TWAT

WHY DID YOU DELETE MY PAGE. YOU FUCK WIT

WHATRE YOU


JUST A NERDY LITTLE COMPUTER FREAK!

OR ARE YOU A MODERATER WHO I SHOULD BE SCARED OF?


COZ I TELL YOU WHAT

IM FUCKING SHAKING IN MY BOOTS MATE!

OOO A MOD WHAT YOU GONNA FUCKING DO?

DELETE ME AND THEN I CAN MAKE A NEW ACCOUNT!

HAHAHAHAH!

Sincerely,

Shaun "Thinks your a dickhead" Sabre

There's one for the highlight reel.--Wafulz 18:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Otto Brandenburg

WHAT ARE YOU DOING ALL YOU DO IS TAKE OUT THE DANISH YOU CRETIN ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 19:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't make any sense. It's a man's name, it describes a female actress, and it has a picture of a male singer. It's on Otto Brandenburg but the imdb link goes to Marguerite Viby.--Wafulz 19:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I was in the middle of sirting it. And don't give me that abouth personal attack -your behaviour is the worst form of personal attack possible ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 19:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you not aware of my work on wikipedia? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 19:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, should I be? The only contact I've ever had with you was you coming here and insulting me out of the blue.--Wafulz 19:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for restoring it. It is not usually my course of action to insult someone but I see the fact that you removed an wentire article without at least consulting me (it even had an info box and image and all) quite an insult in itself and a lack of disrespect for my efforts. I know about the foreign language thing now - I only put danish text in in the hope it would be translated asap into a good length article -it was only because I was trying to make it potentially as detailed as possible. I am 99% of the time very reasonable but I am hot headed when I see the rare occurance of someone removing my work. Sorry mate . I've put about 5,000 new articles on wikipedia -this is why I thought you might have heard of me. My work ranges from Abbas Kiarostami to History of exploration in Tibet to The Temptress. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 19:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah no worries. Everyone's got their hot button. Thanks for all of your contributions by the way- every bit helps.--Wafulz 19:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks amigo. You must get a bit of difficulty from time to time but I admire you for undertaking adminship Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 19:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Seemage article

I am not sure what's so wrong about the content I originally posted to this page. Certainly, "advertising tone" to one editor can be explanation of of concepts and capabilities to another.

I am willing to submit to the editors' collective judgment, but it was meted out rapidly (literally while I was still editing the article) and without any real consideration of the value of the deleted text. If someone is coming to Wikipedia to learn about something, shouldn't its inventors be able to explain it in their own terms?

This wasn't the most pleasant introduction to Wikipedia for a new user: swift, unconsidered and unwelcoming.

Xelan54 18:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The original content used a lot of peacock terms and speculative comments- all articles must be written neutrally. The article sounded almost like a press release or advertisement. For example:
Seemage allows non-technical and non-engineering users to directly import 3D CAD models to produce a wide variety of documentation, including images and animations.
versus
Seemage can directly import 3D CAD models to produce a variety of documentation, including images and animations.
These sentences convey the exact same idea, but the second one doesn't sound like it's trying to convince me that it's better than other products.--Wafulz 18:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your premise that these two sentences are identical. A problem with your version is that it doesn't specify for whom the software is designed. That's important information for readers. You've removed useful information to flatten the article's content, presumably because you have some editorial bias towards more colorfully written articles. If my prose goes purple, I'm happy to take the edits of regulars. But in this case, you edited it down to next to nothing simply to have it match your (apparently predetermined) tolerance level for what you assert is a commercially-oriented article. You quickly looked at the article, went snip, snip and moved on. I wasn't even finished with it, being new to Wikipedia and this being my first article.
I think what you and the other editors do here is amazing. But you're quickly becoming as inflexible, and didactic -- often quoting your very own rules in a circular logic -- as regular print editors. Becoming baroque isn't the best way to keep Wikipedia vital.Xelan54 14:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
How about this? I'm not sure what it is that you're expecting with an open source wiki project- if you make an edit, it's assumed that you will accept the fact that changes might be made immediately afterwards (unless you put {{construction}} or something like that in the article). I don't believe I've used any circular logic- if I have, feel free to point it out. I'm also not sure what you mean by the "print editors" comment, since ideally Wikipedia articles should be print editor quality.--Wafulz 21:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fathers day

It appears the spammer on fathersday is using a new IP. THe article needs to be semi protected. Warrush 19:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Thanks for protecting it, the user was getting very annoying. Warrush 20:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

 ?

can we please have another chance to add the vegas hotel? we are just learning, and how do you cite references?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickchevalley (talk • contribs)

You might want to start with reading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Peacock terms before you consider issues with sourcing. Keep in mind there's a difference between writing for an encyclopedia and writing for a magazine/weblog/newspaper/whatever.--Wafulz 01:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

deletion

you have deleted an article i made, Mack G. but idont think it should have been deleted.could you please tell me what i did wrong(specificly) so i do not make same mistake.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ock (talk • contribs)

Well, you're writing about yourself or your group, which should never be done. You also don't assert any sort of musical notability, and your article was an absolute mess to the point that it looked like a joke.--Wafulz 01:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

ok...but it isnt about me though... but i will try to edit it better and hopefully it will stay.

deletion 2

ok...but it isnt about me though, but i will try to edit it better and hopefully it will stay.

Joseph Nechvatal

Speedy delete as promotional requiring extensive rewrite? I'm asking the two non-COI editors what they think. Otherwise it needs savage pruning. Tyrenius 02:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't meet the requirements for WP:CSD#G11. However, it's part of a huge problem I don't know how to deal with- I'm not sure whether or not it's part of a massive walled garden or some huge conflict of interest or both. It seems like a bunch of art profs writing about themselves, their teachers, their students, and their school. See:
It's all a massive, complex chain of articles.--Wafulz 02:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is exactly what G11 exists for: "articles which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic". The only restraint on deleting it is if you want to do that rewriting. Tyrenius 02:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Freshacconci is willing to edit Joseph Nechvatal. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Infoart articles for a much bigger problem of the same kind. Tyrenius 16:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Counter-Strike Manager

"Recreation of deleted material". Are you kidding me, I just wrote that!

What was wrong about it? The article itself doesn't violate any rules. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.79.24.162 (talk • contribs) 12:32, June 13, 2007.

Probably for the same reasons it was deleted previously, I'm guessing. Check here and here as to those instances. -Ebyabe 17:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fathers day.

Looks like the anonymoes ip has created an account, hes link spamming again. Should the article be put up for full protection? Warrush 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Warrush

Just a question, if I find a page that is very short, and badly written. What do I do. The article is Mr Nice and it has no references what so ever. Warrush 20:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's just a one sentence stub with an infobox, it shouldn't be too hard to find an official website or some such to act as a source. Ideally, a stub should be at least a few sentences long. If an article doesn't provide any context at all, you can add {{a1}} to it to mark it for speedy deletion. If it doesn't clearly say why it is notable enough for an article, you can add {{a7}}. If it is poorly written/sourced, then the {{cleanup}}, {{unsourced}} or {{wikify}} tags should be added.--Wafulz 20:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanks, can you add some links to my talk page on pages that I should look up for this kind of stuff. I like using quick links so I can fight vandalism and stuff faster. Warrush 20:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, can you recheck Mr Nice to see if I did it right? Warrush 20:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you did it correctly, but the page doesn't need cleanup. If you want to run tests, try Wikipedia:Sandbox.--Wafulz 20:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How does it not need cleanup? It doesn't provide sources, references, and is one sentence long. What kind of articles would I put that tag on? Warrush 20:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

For that, you would use {{unreferenced}}. The {{cleanup}} template is used for when articles are confusing and/or messy, or don't follow the manual of style. The {{wikify}} tag is used when articles aren't wikified (for example, when they are just plain text with no links, or use lots of HTML).--Wafulz 20:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
If you want examples of templates in use, check out articles listed here and here.--Wafulz 20:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for the help. Once again, can you check the article to make sure the tags are in the right spot. Mr Nice Warrush 20:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

album art deletions

Because i'm tired of wiki and the Power Ranger Wiki God Bot Of Doom. They're all going to be deleted anyway. -Violask81976 15:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Ok. I fee like a retard now - i gave up on trying to keep track of everything..I don't have the time to read 10-20 screen arguments on like 5 different talk pages. Plus everybody seems to ignore me when i try to bring something up..i', seriously this close (imagine me holding my fingers up about 1 inch apart) from leaving this "free" wiki. They're so caught up in being free they are screwing themselves over. It's nice to see that they shut down the bot for a while, though. Takes a load off of the wiki's back. -Violask81976 15:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

John Robb (GG theorist)

Today you deleted John Robb (GG theorist), I would like to ask why. I've been working on the page a bit lately, providing an outline for the article and working towards expanding it. I would hate to see my work on it go to waste by being deleted. Thank you for your help. Grant 23:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it didn't really assert any notability. It basically said he was a blogger who used to be in the army and had published a book.--Wafulz 03:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with that, as the article stood. However, I do think he is notable and that the article needs more work to express that, instead of being deleted. Can you restore the article and I'll do a quick edit that explains the importance of his work? Thanks! Grant 05:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright, restored. No guarantees that it won't be deleted via AfD.--Wafulz 10:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Understood, that will at least give me a chance to defend the article. Thanks for your help. Grant 15:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Occupational Illness redirect

Hi there, Your recent change of redirect location at Occupational Illness (no-redirect link), is unjustified and unwanted as there is an article differently capitalized but otherwise of exactly the same name. I have changed it back and added links to Industrial illness at the page. The whole employment injuries/illnesses circle is very complex and under development. Cheers, Bennyboyz3000 05:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just fixing a double redirect (the page didn't exist at the time) but okay.

Wathgill

I was wondering why you deleted wathgill.Cyberdemon007 12:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Uncontested proposed deletion. You can recreate it if you disagree (or have me recreate it), but there's no guarantee that it won't be deleted at Articles for deletion.--Wafulz 12:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
No what i mean is why was it proposed in the first place,and yes you can recreate it if you want.Cyberdemon007 12:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
It was proposed by User:B. Wolterding with the reason "This article is about a subject which may not be notable enough to be included on Wikipedia".--Wafulz 12:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead Belly

You reverted Joshuawein's comments on the talk page for Leadbelly, but left his edit (in which he mistook the date of Lead Belly's parents' marriage for his birthdate.) I fixed that.--Larrybob 19:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that he came back later and made the edit on the page. Still, it probably would have been better to respond to his suggestion on the talk page, rather than deleting it, as it may have led to him making a bad edit on the page.--Larrybob 19:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Acid Eyeliner

This band are about to get signed with Sony BMG. And are getting bigger, please dont delete it again when i re upload the article

Trying to get consensus on Technocracy

Hi Wafulz, as you may be aware, User:Skipsievert has continued with his same controversial edits since the protection of the Technocratic movement went down. I've already reverted these once today (reasons have been talked through on the talk page), but he has of-course immediately put them back up, with no justification. So I would like you to give your opinion about these edits and about the editor's behaviour in general (Here). He is also similarly resisting any tampering with his Technocracy Study Course article, I'd be good if you could intervene there too. Anyway I would appreciate any further advice on how to deal with the situation. Thanks. --Hibernian 15:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, he reverts all my edits at Technocracy Study Course, even though I have explained everything on the talk page, but then he goes and deletes my entries on the talk page. (see his version compared to my earlier version. --154.5.41.198 19:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

skip sievert issue at Technocracy Study Course

Sorry to involve you in another skip episode, but since you are familiar with previous antics, I think you are the admin best to judge. He has done two reverts in 24 hours thus far on the Technocracy Study Course page and I have warned him of the 3RR on User_talk:Skipsievert. I don't expect anything like this to change overnight, but I am sure you are more capable than I am to handle this. Thanks. --77siddhartha 07:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You've warned him about the three-revert rule, so I guess I'll just keep an eye out at this point.--Wafulz 17:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

School ips

Just a question since the admin i asked before hasn't answered, if you come across an ip that vandalizes, and using a dns lookup and it comes back as a school. What is the script to put on the talkpage so that other users can see where the ip is from, and what school it belongs to. Also, are admins the only ones that are supposed to put that script on, or can anybody do it? Warrush 15:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can do it. You can find the details at Template:SharedIPEDU.--Wafulz 15:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

User profile deleted:

Notice: You are re-creating a page that was previously deleted. You should consider whether it is appropriate to continue editing this page. Information is available on what to do if a page you created is deleted. The deletion log for this page is provided here for convenience: * 14:04, 11 June 2007 Wafulz (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Davereject" (Uncontested proposed deletion: Deleted after five days)

Uncontested proposed deletion, why was my profile deleted? I understand the image, but the profile itself? Davereject 20:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason given for deletion was "This user page seems to be a blog, social networking profile or a personal webpage. The user concerned has made few (if any) encyclopedic contributions and is very unlikely to do so in the future." It was proposed by User:MER-C. --Wafulz 22:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey

I'm wondering if you could restore the Chris Duffy (footballer) article? I mean, I wouldn't be able to expand it, but I'm sure someone else could. Kwsn(Ni!) 16:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's better off as a redlink- it was a ten word stub that didn't even have any useful information in it. I believe a redlink is more likely to motivate someone to create the article with at least some content and context in it.--Wafulz 16:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thing is, there's a lot of ten word stubs out there for similar players. I understand your reasoning though. Now, if you killed it under A7, that would be annoying to no end. Kwsn(Ni!) 16:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah if I delete a Man United stub under A7 just slap me or something.--Wafulz 16:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoresauce

Whoresauce is definately is a rapidly growing slang term of local Pigtown (Neighborhood of SW Baltimore named because pigs used to be herded down Washington Blvd to be slaughtered at Camden Yards) dialect and significant if the same way the term "Hon" in well known if Baltimore.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadernie (talk • contribs)

Regardless, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and all material should be verifiable by reliable sources.--Wafulz 17:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Very well then. Would Wikionary be a more appropriate place to place this?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadernie (talk • contribs)

If it meets their criteria, yes. If it doesn't, it probably doesn't belong on any of the Wikimedia Foundation projects.--Wafulz 16:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

could you help me with a reliable source for Humble Abode Games? I linked to their site and I myself am a part of the developer... is there any way to turn these facts into a reliable source? Would I need pictures or email addresses? Any help would be appreciated! (This is not for advertising purposes by the way, only to show the history of our development so our fans can look into what we were before where we are at today.)

vendlus records

don't delete this article. This is an established label with an international roster. Their releases are readily available outlets. Even their new releases are mentioned on MTV.COM.

Alright.--Wafulz 02:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

thank you..--Vouna 11:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


Also there is no such thing of being of "soviet" heritage, your either russian, belarusian, or ukrainian or perhap's another slavic ethnicity. You should also be very happy to be belarusian, a lot of people (including the smithsonian) forget that belarus is a seperate ethnic culture and lump its historical figures with Russia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.185.210 (talk • contribs)

Er, okay...?

I just thought I'd let you know, I'm big on identity. It's important to seperate the Ethnic from the Political Movement. Also Belarus has it's own language but it's being suffocated by their current government, and Cultural Identity is connected with Language so it's a very troubling time right now..--Vouna 11:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Rob Simmelkjaer bio

Hi there -

I currently work for ABC News and have permission to use the copyrighted bio that I posted yesterday. My email address is patrick.s.hu.-nd@abc.com. What else do I need to do in order to post?

Please advise. Thanks!

Pat

You should ask at User talk:Bastique. He works specifically with copyrights and can give you further direction.--Wafulz 15:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, will do.

hey

were u the peep who deleted my page....whateverGirlgirl2424 16:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering what information I contributed to the page 'Ali Hasan al-Majid' was inaccurate

Hi, I understand your concern for quality here on Wikipedia, especially on articles subject to change like that of Ali Hassan al-Majid. What I do not understand however, is your assertion that information contributed by myself on the aforementioned article is inaccurate.

Let me explain. 'Hasan' is the preferred Arabic translation of the anglicized name 'Hassan'. The double-S is not relevant in Iraqi Arabic/English transliteration. Furthermore, al-Tikriti is the well-documented surname of Mr. al-Majid. The use of surnames was banned at one time in the Ba'th Government due perhaps to 'al-Tikriti' being relatively widespread among officials. Therefore Saddam Husayn, when asked for his full name at the commencement of the al-Dujail trial, replied 'Saddam Husayn al-Majid', as opposed to 'Saddam Husayn Abd (which means servant) al-Majid al-Tikriti'. Anyway, the name 'al-Tikriti' is nonetheless part of the man's name, despite not being used. Look at the name on his Iraqi playing card that the US created if further evidence is needed.

Also, it is important to remember that al-Majid was convicted and sentenced on 24th June, not the 23rd. It happened today. I understand that in some timezones, the news will have reached the public on June 23rd, but it has been agreed as far more accurate to use the date at the location it took place in. For example, the US invaded Iraq on 19th March, 2003 if you wre in the US at the time, but as the location of invasion was Iraq, the date recorded was March 20th, 2003. The time of day the first bombs fell will also be based on the time of day in Iraq.

Thirdly, when discussing judicial proceedings such as the al-Anfal trial, it would be less assumptive and also less biased to refer to the atrocities reportedly carried out in Kurdistan from 1987 - 1989 as merely the argument presented by the prosecution. To refer to them otherwise may contradict the findings of any future investigations. You may favour this viewpoint if you like, ad you have the decision of a court of law to back you up on that, but be very weary when pointing fingers and making accusations. The appeals process has just barely begun and there may be much to find out yet.

Skip again

Can I just draw your attention to this, For anyone who still doesn’t understand Skip's motives, I think this has got to be the end of it. --Hibernian 02:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not definite proof of anything- this is the internet after all. However, it's all skip's writing style (and the same common mistakes), so I'll keep an eye on this.--Wafulz 18:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, not definite proof? Maybe you should take a closer look, it was made under his account and all the posts are signed by him (here's his profile stating it [1]). Who the hell else would it be? Anyway the main question I was asking was, is this sort of attack considered as breaching any rules of Wikipedia, or is it not, because it's off-site? I just can't believe Skip hasn't been banned yet. I mean he's broken just about every rule possible, what is it going to take before some action is taken? --Hibernian 04:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Mother Hips"

You have deleted the Page "Mother hips" (correct spelling should be "Mother Hips" or "The Mother Hips") cause of "non significance". For me it has some significance, since I heard them 2-3 times on different internet radio stations and found them very interesting. They also are listed in the "indie playlist April 2007". Since it is difficult from outer space (i.e. europe) to get information, the article may be usefull for people like me. Would be nice to see it again (but with the correct title). -- Fuhbär 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because it made no assertion of musical significance, as outlined in this guideline. Internet radio play, playlists, and being interesting are, unfortunately, not indicators of notability. If you feel that I deleted it in mistake, you can work on the article yourself in a sub-page of your userspace. If you believe it meets the notability guideline, you can recreate it- however, it may still be nominated for deletion via the Articles for Deletion process.-Wafulz 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
According to this, at least 4, 5, 11 of this guideline apply. Since I'm not a fan, only interested, these are my very last words. -- Fuhbär 11:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm not entirely convinced, but you can recreate it if the article in your userspace is done. However, it may be suggested for deletion at Articles for Deletion.-Wafulz 16:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Robin William's Biography

I just wanted to let you know that I looked at your links to verify his birth as 1952. I personally think this is the date that should be used. It looks silly having two dates, 1951 & 1952. Do you agree? --CrohnieGalTalk 21:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for fixing and adding the other links. I didn't realize that the one link didn't work. I checked it when I was editing and it showed up properly but obviously it didn't show on the article when I finished my edit. Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 22:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

undelete

You deleted an legitimate article titled List of Music in Project Gotham Racing 3. I believe the reasoning was lack of sourcing. Here, I will provide a reliable source. Here is a Bizarre(creators of the game) Staff member listing the music of the game on the forums of their official website.

http://www.bizarrecreations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=184338#184338

The reasoning wasn't just sources along- there was the concern that it was too detailed (and beyond Wikipedia's scope) to keep a list of music in a video game, unless that series is particularly noted for its music.--Wafulz 15:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Jennifer Ann Crecente

The following action was taken on June 24, 2007. Could you explain why you deleted this user page?

13:42, 24 June 2007 Wafulz (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Drew30319/Jennifer Ann Crecente" (CSD R2: Redirect to User/User talk namespaces from mainspace)

This occurred two days prior to a speedy delete of the article in question by User talk:TexasAndroid. Were these actions related?

13:11, 26 June 2007 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs) (6,606 bytes) (Version deleted from mainspace as a recreation)

Have the Toronto-based IP addresses owned by Bell Canada

  • 64.231.250.116
  • 64.231.250.169
  • 64.231.248.87
  • 69.158.170.135
  • 70.48.35.191
  • 64.231.253.109
  • 69.158.170.135

been used by you in editing Wikipedia?

Drew30319 15:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The two events are unrelated, and I have not edited under those IPs. I deleted the user page because it was a redirect to a deleted mainspace article, which are deleted as a housekeeping/procedural thing.-Wafulz 16:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
What I find confusing is that it appears that the mainspace article was deleted two days after the user page. Is there a discrepancy in the dates that I've provided above? Also, is there a page that I can view all pages that fall into this housekeeping/procedural category? Drew30319 16:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The article was actually initially deleted via the Articles for deletion process in November 2006. The speedy deletion on June 20th was under criteria for recreated deleted material. You should probably ask TexasAndroid specifically about the deletion. Also, procedural broken redirect deletions are listed at Category:Broken redirects for speedy deletion. The other deletions are listed at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, though these aren't sorted in any way.-Wafulz 17:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

SpyHunter

I got your message, thanks. I would like to state that,as a fact, Enigma software Group is unreachabe. You are told to leave your number for call back and are never called. This may be the wrong place but there needs to be someway to warn people of the actual facts about Enigma Software Group.

I would suggest the Better Business Bureau or some equivalent. Wikipedia's not the place for it, sorry.-Wafulz 17:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Why was TimeTrex article deleted?

Hi there, I'm curious why the TimeTrex article was deleted? It mentions:

Expired PROD, concern was: No case for note can be easily made - Author

How is TimeTrex not notable? Its one of the only (if not the only) open source payroll and time management softwares products that exist today. How is it not at least as notable if not more notable then any of the other software packages on the current: Comparison_of_time_tracking_software article? Not a single one is open source.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.236.35 (talk • contribs)

It was an expired proposed deletion, so the deletion was procedural. If you'd like, I can restore it for you, though it may still be deleted at Articles for deletion.-Wafulz 00:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please restore it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.236.35 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for restoring the TimeTrex article. Is it possible to restore the image as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.236.35 (talk • contribs)

The image was never deleted. It's at Image:Attendance sm1.png. However, it's got the wrong copyright tag- unless the program is in the public domain, it should not be tagged with that. It should have the fair-use tag {{screenshot}} (with accompanying fair use rationale).-Wafulz 22:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I added a new image Image:Attendance1.png that is under the fair use license. I'm new to WikiPedia so hopefully I have done everything correct. I think you can delete Image:Attendance sm1.png as it is no longer needed. I have also updated this article to provide much more information about the product and company itself. If you have time can you please take a look and let me know if meets all the Wikipedia guidelines and requirements? Thanks. --Ipso frato 23:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair use images need a fair use rationale (the guide for creating one is here). Basically you have to state where you got the image, why there is no free replacement, and why it is necessary to have it. The article reads in a promotional manner- try not to emphasize each detail of the program. The idea is to give the reader a general overview- if it comes off like a brochure description, then it's got an advertising overtone. It's also unnecessary to attach an external link to each feature. Finally, it looks like other editors might be questioning its notability, so it would be a good idea to find independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability and verifiability. For software, a few independent reviews from someplace with editorial oversight will generally do the trick. However, if none can be found, there's nothing I can do.
Writing about a product can be very tricky. One of the best pointers I can give is to watch the tone- you should be telling readers what the program does, not what it can do for them. Don't write "The invoicing and accounts receivable module allows businesses to define their clients, products and services for which they can then create invoices for and track payments." Instead, write "The invoicing and accounts receivable module defines clients, products and services, and creates invoices and tracks payments." This is a basic idea, but I hope you get the gist of it. -Wafulz 02:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I see, thanks for taking the time to explain it to me in more detail, but apparently someone else already removed all the work I put in to the article. Doesn't make much sense to me, I basically copied the exact layout from a similar article (24SevenOffice) and tried to improve upon it. Apparently its fine there, but not here. Every time I try to add notability or sources they seem to get removed within hours, so I guess I still don't understand and I don't want to come across as spammer/vandal because that is not my intention at all. Maybe someone else will fix the article before it gets deleted again in a few days.
Yeah, that's the nature of the beast: everyone disagrees, nothing is correct, the writing sucks, and somehow in the end you get a functional article out of it all. If you know of any reliable sources for the article, list them in the deletion discussion. Stuff like press releases don't count- product reviews and the like would be best.-Wafulz 17:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

article status

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gather (website). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Deletion of =FsU= Clan article

I wasn't even done creating the page. Reason: insignificant? We are significant to a lot of people, so I wanted to make a wiki article explaining, in one place, who we are. Their are many other gaming clans that have wiki articles. Please put our article back up. Jordanrobbins 18:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the reason was you didn't say why the clan is significant/notable. Unless the clan has been covered in reliable third party media (not user-submitted), it won't meet notability requirements.-Wafulz 18:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Bring back my page: Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists!

Please, this is a real group of Wikipedians! I am one of the 300-some Wikipedians in this group! See the link in the Userbox:

{{User AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD}}

That page that you deleted was going to be part of the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD pages! Although this Wikipedian group has a weird name visit them on the above link. nothing personal, just bring it back!

  Kinkijui KNK! 19:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
You created it in the article space instead of the Wikipedia: space. If you really want it, you should make a Wikipedia:Soft redirect though.-Wafulz 19:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Julia Perry-Oliver

Where did you get information of Julia's Last name?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drummer06 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what you're talking about.-Wafulz 02:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Fetch! with Ruff Ruffman,its said that you put in that information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drummer06 (talk • contribs)
I've never edited that page.-Wafulz 12:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Well I traced everything back to you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.120.224 (talk • contribs)
Be specific. I still have no idea what you're talking about. Give me a question with all the context behind it.-Wafulz 18:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Please forgive me, its just Im an editer for Fetch! with Ruff Ruffman and there has been some confusion on The Contestants last names. And I have been Tryin' to figure everything out, So I into the Articles history traced the Modifications back to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.120.224 (talk • contribs)
Sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). How did you "trace" this to me? Like I've said, I've never edited this article.-Wafulz 01:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Man like i said i just followed the history.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drummer06 (talk • contribs)
Since I have never edited Fetch! with Ruff Ruffman, the history doesn't lead to me. Either you're mistaken or talking about something else.-Wafulz 01:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Your right...Im Sorry I Just saw your name and thought you did it...So again im Sorry for bombarding in like this.I will Let you be on your way And I will try to find who really made these Modifications.Drummer06

You're a dick, but I understand.

You deleted my friends article. I guess you didn't like it. Sorry for wasting your time I guess but now he's just going to have to put it up again. It's a vicious cycle.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.93.42 (talk • contribs)

List of Jabber client software

I don't like your downgrade of Wikipedia's objectivity in the List of Jabber client software article...see discussion page --NaturalBornKiller 12:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply added --NaturalBornKiller 18:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Demo Groups / Science 451

I noticed that you deleted the article that I wrote about Science 451. Now, I can somewhat understand it; if all groups that could be considered influentual on all scenes are to be listed, it would be a very long list, and the question is whether it's not better to use specialist sites like CSDb and Poüet for this.

On the other hand, it certainly qualifies measuring by the standars displayed by the groups listed under Category:Demo group. Several of the groups listed there are groups that had a very limited impact on the scene as a whole, or their particular scene.

My recommendation would be to delete all entries on that page, except for a few warez-group that had media coverage (Fairligt, Razor 1911, THG) and maybe just have a list of known groups on one page (or maybe skip that entirerly)

If you intend to keep the category, and a majority of the entries listed there, it is my opinion that the Science 451 page should be put back. When I wrote it I made sure to make it similar in layout and style to several other pages, to make it NPOV.

Best regards, Mlonnqvist 14:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look through Category:Demo groups within the next few days. Some may have to be individually tagged with {{prod}} or listed on Articles for deletion.-Wafulz 14:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanx, but that wasnt my point. My point was that All of them should be removed. There's no point in having a "demo group" section, with a lot of entries, if there is no standard for which entries should be there and which should not. Right now it's completely random and seems to mostly be related to which articles gets flagged for delation. (And yes, I am a bit annoyed that the two articles that I wrote, who were more relevant then several articles still remaining, were deleted, but if it leads to some kind of standard being set it's not completely in vain) Mlonnqvist 21:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The standard is if they have multiple independent reliable sources. Every article that does not present them, or does not assert significance other than existing, will end up deleted. It may be random in selection, but it's certainly not random in deletion.-Wafulz 02:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I claim that all of them should be deleted (once again, with the exception of those warez groups that got media coverage, but that media coverage relates to their warez activities, not their demoscene activities). I did check what kind of sources the other articles had before I wrote my (now deleted) articles, and they cited references such as the groups webpages, CSDb (Commodore Scene Database) and Poüet (a scene-related site) and provided such references for the groups that I added. If that isnt good enough for the groups that I added, then it's not good enough for the groups that remain, and thus they should all be removed. Granted, I didnt check all of them (maybe 60-70%), but those I checked had no other sources. So, the end question would have to be; does Wikipedia want to have separate entries for demoscene, and what kind of sources are considered reliable in that case. To my knowledge, CSDb is the biggest and most reliable source for demogroups on the c64. (And yes, clearly I am a bit annoyed that all articles that I wrote are deleted, but no other, and that the deletion process seems very random, but I am trying to primarily keep this discussion on a general level, i.e. what should be the selection criteria in this case, and what is considered reliable sources) Mlonnqvist 10:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

On a general level, a source is considered reliable and non-trivial if it is independent of the subject, if its focus is the subject, and if it has editorial oversight. Generally, directory-type sites are not accepted as reliable source. I'm going to look through the category of demo groups either tomorrow or the day after (it's a national holiday weekend here). I'm also going to ask over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science and see if they have any suggestions.-Wafulz 02:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 30 June 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Salvatore Pincherle, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 12:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)