User talk:Dacium/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Kingturtle 20:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Card counting edits
Hi, Dacium- I deleted the section on common traits of card counters and included the reasoning why in the talk page for that article. I think you might benefit from reviewing the official Wikipedia policies that I posted links to on the talk page there. Cheers. Rray 21:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you would benefit from reading the policies. You should have tagged it for sources required. Not just deleted it. It is your opinion that it is OR because you clearly no very little to nothing about the topic. I was under the impression that so long as work wasn't 'contested' that it did not yet have to be sourced.


 * Feel free to re-add the information and include appropriate citations. You're supposed to include citations when you make additions. See No original research,  Citing sources, and  Verifiability. I'm under no obligation to tag something for sources required; if you want the content included, then you're obligated to demonstrate verifiability by including sources. Also, I "no" plenty about the topic.


 * Also, you mentioned in one of your edits to the article that there is "No need for citing 'facts' if you can logically deduce them....) That's contrary to the policies and guidelines I've provided links to for you above, which is why I suggested that you review Wikipedia guidelines. Logically deducing facts is by definition original research. Rray 14:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OR is defined as something that either: Introduces new ideas (didnt do this) defines new terms (nope didnt do this) provides or presumes new definition of pre-existing terms (nope didn't do this), introduces an argument to support another idea/theory (nope didn't do this), Introduces an analysis of facts that are favoured by the editor (nope they were already there), In introduces neologism (nope didnt do that). Once again only you believe it was OR. I don't see how placing something and not yet giving a source is OR. The whole article on blackjack is almost entirely source-less. How about you delete it? You should delete every section that is not sourced because its potentially OR. Insurance isn't a good bet? There is no source, must be OR. I would like to add that if something isn't contested it shouldn't be deleted for non-source, but I will no longer add information unless compeltely sourced because it is clear to me that nothign is 'uncontested' on wikipedia because people will question even the most trivial of things.

11 in craps
Oh my! I thought that meant 11 as in "1-1", not eleven. Clearly, I should have read more closely :-) &mdash;ptk✰fgs 08:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should change it to a better number/example?


 * Writing out "eleven" would probably be the easiest solution. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 04:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Hogwarts founders‎
Hi, first off, let me tell you that I wholeheartedly agree with your edits to Hogwarts founders‎. The article is/was full of OR. Be warned though, certain editors frequently revert the deletion of OR from Harry Potter related articles and will argue with you vehemently using various illogical points. I suggest that you watchlist the pages you clean-up and be prepared to defend yourself. This page in particular has been the subject of many debates. Just a heads-up, John Reaves (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Having come from many other articles on gambling/math/history/science i was almost fell of my chair seeing the amount of unverifiably original research that comes in the articles. There are alot of literrary people that seem to want to elaborate on things for the sake of it. Harry Potter pages are a complete mess. Filled with OR and other non-sense. The majority of pages don't even fit WP:FICT rules and I intend to go through and fix ALOT. --Dacium 10:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, just be prepared (and careful some stuff reads like OR but isn't). John Reaves (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL its already been reverted because they want to put back 'true info'. This is going to be harder than i thought.--Dacium 11:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Some things you're are doing aren't helping. Note that the title of that article was Minor members of the Order of the Phoenix. Some of the name information isn't OR. John Reaves (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Effectively, separate character articles in HP thus far have been based on the relevance of the character thus far - a character who has merely made a few appearances, and who has never been important in the book (e.g. Piers Polkiss) gets stuck in a collection; a character who is agreed to have played an important role thus far gets his/her own article (e.g. Ludo Bagman, who was a figure of suspicion in GoF, had a significant amount of page space, etc). And dubious characters get discussed. Otherwise, it's just your (rule-breaking) opinion of who is major/minor (I could argue that the only major characters are Harry, Voldemort, Snape and Dumbledore). If you believe changes to this system need to be made, bring the issue up at the project page, rather than unilaterally making changes (and re. Gryffindor page - despite the name, it is used only for those Gryffindors in Harry's year. Bring the issue up on the talk page there if you think a change should be made). Michaelsanders 18:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree about the characters minor/major, I sort of rolled on from merging in obvious ones like that Romilda. The definintion of a name isn't OR, but it is when there is speculation of matching it upto real history and saying the name could mean this or that because these words are similair or sound the same, or that the name was based on this other characters with the same name because he had these traits.--Dacium 22:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Mergers
If you are intending to make such widespread, deep and controversial merges, I suggest you discuss it on the project discussion page. Making so many such decisions off your own bat, whilst not against wikipedia policy, is frowned upon. Michaelsanders 16:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you are correct. I thought the community would agree that they are minor characters but appartenly the understanding of WP:FICT is almost non existant and people are not aware that merely mentioning everything the character has done in the series is trivial and does not allow them to be major characters.


 * I normally only do AFD's but I was asked to look over HP by some admins as I know the series well and they felt it was getting 'out of hand'. The main gripes where the disorder of list on Category:Harry_Potter_characters and that to many minor characters were allowed pages. They also said to many pages have contained to much original research (cho chang, hogwarts founders) and that they are being used as precedents for other series due to the popularity of Harry Potter and LotR, and that the portal community was largly just enhancing the problem but continally including trivial information (down to including information about every single time a minor character is even mentioned).


 * I ask for your help particularly when it comes to name etymology because it needs to externally verifiable. Almost all information about characters comes from the books themselves but these don't. Definition of what a name means is fine, but speculation that it could have come from this or this person also had this name and this had these characteristics etc, or implying that the author was intending this etc. is original research.


 * I won't do merge anymore or raise it to the community because I have just been informed a newer WP:FICT is about to be drafted to more clearly define minor characters, as every community is having problems with minor characters, in that members of the community are so knowledgeable they consider almost anyone who has repeated mentions 'major'.


 * My current intention is just to fix the category listings. cat Harry_Potter_characters says "This is a catch-all category for Harry Potter characters who don't fit into any of the below categories." but almost all of them listed do fit into the categories. What is likly to be response if I start moving them to appropraite categories? The clear aim should be almost no characaters not categorised.--Dacium 21:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you show me where you were you asked to look at Harry Potter articles and who asked you? John Reaves (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It was not a formal thing. I was asking a friend of mine in real life who is an admin for something he though needed work and he said HP stuff. he might get into trouble now so i'd rather not say. Can you tell me if 'This is a catch-all category for Harry Potter characters who don't fit into any of the below categories.' is to be taken as correct, so I can start removing characters from that category when they are already in a sub category?--Dacium 22:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If they're in, or should be in, a sub-category, go ahead and remove Category:Harry Potter characters. I think the category should be a catch-all for all Harry Potter subjects that do not fit into a sub-cat, not just characters. John Reaves (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Also what steps should I do to create a new category. I have had a look at the characters and think there needs to be a 'magical marchant' category under Harry Potter Characters category that all the shop keeps etc. can be placed under, thanks.--Dacium 22:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I created one at Category:Merchants in Harry Potter. John Reaves (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

AACP
Could you please take another look at AACP? I tried to improve the page. --Eastmain 18:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the delete vote, thanks for fixing it.--Dacium 21:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Civilization One
Hi Dacium, I'm glad you raised your concerns about the article. But I do have a piece of advice for you, if you want all of your questions to be answered properly. This is going to sound like an ad, but you should read the book. A WP article can never be as long as a book, and maybe, after you read it, you will understand, and/or trust the text a bit more, or perhapes the contrary. But I think, whatever the outcome, you should read the book. After you've read the text in its entirety, I'd be interested to know what you think... Thanks, Anonymous Dissident


 * The only problem I have is getting the whole book. I have ready parts of it. I certainly am not going to pay for it as the reviews I have seen have all been around 3/10 4/10, maybe my library has it.--Dacium 22:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?
Are you 155.144.251.120? If you are, see WP:SOCK or remember to log in. John Reaves (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No that is other people on the same router.--Dacium 08:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If that is so, it would probably be safest if you asked them to carry out different tasks - were you accused of sockpuppetry, it would be difficult for you to definitively prove that you were innocent - and whilst I don't see you getting into trouble (since it couldn't be definitively proved that you were sockpuppeteering, and there have been few questionable interactions between you and the anon, apart from your shared workload, and your defence of the anon on its talkpage), it would reflect rather badly on you. So, if possible, ask the other person to be careful of causing you trouble. Michaelsanders 16:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why was this anonymous IP doing the exact same thing you were doing (i.e. removing the HP characters cat)? John Reaves (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes a friend from his work--155.144.251.120 21:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the problem remains that there is no ultimate proof either way. I suggest, 155, that if you really want to help your friend, you should use Dacium's account to make any changes which correspond to his own; alternatively, possibly find a different area of work to do here, in order to prevent misunderstandings. Michaelsanders 23:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the IP is used by possibly many people. most edits were probably me forgetting to log in. The user talk for the IP contains things that predate both myself and the 155. it is taking the ip of some sort of server rather than our computers IPs. Is it possible to add the ip to be blocked from editing unless logged in because i can see causing great trouble.--Dacium 01:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Wikipedia talk:Notability (news)
In the discussion at Articles for deletion/Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce in which you participated, some editors suggested the need for a guideline where a consensus could be reached regarding whether everything which is newsworthy is also encyclopedic. I have created a draft of a proposed guideline Wikipedia talk:Notability (news). Your input is welcome. Thanks. Edison 15:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

original phrase removed
''Hi I noticed that you removed some of my original phrases on AFD article nomination. I was wondering if you can direct me to the standards for this so i know what is/isn't acceptable, thanks.--Dacium 21:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for refactoring.
 * WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE.
 * I don't actually think you were very much uncivil. I certainly wouldn't have removed the material if it had referred to me or any other established Wikipedian. But the author of the article is a newbie, and I felt the "outright fraud" and other comments were a bit harsh on her.
 * Hesperian 22:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Thanks--Dacium 22:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:Wikiquette and a sense of humour would help -over literalist V and N interpretations dont help anyone in my opinion -specially provincially based ones - (see my talk page items elsewhere) - I agree with hesperian - and try to be polite myself -  but I do bite vandals! :) SatuSuro 01:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Software patents under the Patent Cooperation Treaty
You have participated in Articles for deletion/Software patents under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, and you have recommended redirect. I have entirely rewritten the article. You may wish to have a look and decide whether reviewing your opinion is appropriate. Thank you. --Edcolins 17:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Great Walk Networking
Please do not edit AfD pages which have been marked closed by an admin. If you wish to dispute the closing, talk to the admin on their user talk page, or seek a deletion review. Awyong J. M. Salleh 04:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be made more clear that another AFD for a different nominiation reason cannot be performed. I still cant find the rules for this.--Dacium 07:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:POINT and Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point in relation to a second afd for GWN are notable issues for your consideration. Specially when the afd was keep, your persistence does not really warrant the effort. for people to deal with that so close to the time of the first afd.   Try to help foster  WP:Wikiquette - and patience and good humour - it helps SatuSuro 05:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity have you actually read Articles for deletion ? SatuSuro 05:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What does it have to do with making a point? The AFD was for COI was resulted in keep. I didn't see the closing admin make any mention about the verifiability or the notability so I thought the Afd was not even judged on this. I couldn't care less if it results in keep but if should be put through the same process as other organisations that are AFD'd. The fact that the original AFD'er did it for COI and not for more large problems the article have shouldn't be used as a cop-out for the article to pass WP:ORG. Apprently I re AFD'd it too soon (despite the fact that other articles I have seen have been AFD'd 7 times in 3 months. I am not going to bother to try and get any deletion review. But there is not doupt that the page will be re AFD'd eventually anyway because it has no claim to notibility at all.

--Dacium 07:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There are no constraints on the policy scope of AfD discussions. Just because a nominator or early voter claims that the article is a COI, doesn't mean all subsequent contributors are bound to judge the article purely on COI grounds, and so it doesn't mean that the AfD was "for COI". I know my vote to keep had nothing to do with COI, as I don't even consider that a criterion for deletion. I voted on notability and verifiability grounds.
 * The fact is, the article was nominated for AfD, people had the opportunity to give their two cents, and the result was a consensus to keep. You don't get to renominate within three days just because you disagree with the result.
 * Hesperian 10:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: USMC film list
You have commented on the AFD discussion for List of films featuring United States Marines, the discussion can be viewed at Articles for deletion/List of films featuring United States Marines.

Following support for my suggestion, I have done a userspace rewrite of the article at User:Saberwyn/Films featuring the United States Marine Corps, with the rewritten article in the top half and the current article with annotations as to their inclusion or non-inclusion in the rewritten list.

I would like to request that you review the rewritten article, and if you think it is appropriate, amend your stance at the AFD discussion. -- saberwyn 11:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Cricketbox
Template:Cricketbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Thugchildz 06:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Really though, what difference does this have from this-

I don't really see a lot of difference excep that one's horizontal and one's vertical. It contains the same about of info as the one above it except for the date. So cant we just move this one to the ODI one since the new takes less space? And just adjust it a bit so the key is the same so it works for the pages already using the old one?--Thugchildz 05:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you replace the odi template with that cricket box EVERYTHING using the ODI template will break because they don't have the same variables, so this would have to be done at least. And the flag will be on the wrong side of the team on the left. But if you want to go though every cricket article and change it....--Dacium 07:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)