User talk:Dominik92/Archive 1

Eternal Moonshine of the Simpson Mind
please do not add cultural references but discus them here as there have been several conflicts going on  C t j f 8 3  talk 00:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * also note, that the Simpsons episodes that are good articles have the cultural references all sourced  C t j f 8 3  talk 00:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't see the talk page--Dominik92 (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * it's ok, i added a few refs to the cultural reference section. btw, i have never heard of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, so it isn't an obvious reference to me  C t j f 8 3  talk 00:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about?! The way i fixed it, is the proper way to ref, so the link is contained in the references section at the btm of the page  C t j f 8 3  talk 04:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the link Moe's Tavern, it goes to a red link for some reason, I didn't notice that you fixed the reference, sorry about that, could you please tell me how to do that?--The Dominator (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno what was up with Moe, i didnt even touch that...anyway, i fixed both now...for the reference you type


 * Ok, thanks.--The Dominator (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem...lol, i like "The Dominator" better!  C t j f 8 3  talk 04:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry ; it was "Jeztah" - I looked at edit history and my eyes scanned to name below me, my mistake. - Yours truly,  Superior (talk)  23:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, you're going over bored on this reference thing...not EVERYTHING needs one  C t j f 8 3  talk 05:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL, please, the minister of health is far different then an American president. and like i said, it is an American show, so if it is obvious to us, i don't think it should need a ref...yes, we aren't the only ones reading the page, but still....either way, i'm not gonna revert all night, so whatever, i'll leave it  C t j f 8 3  talk 05:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Long story short, and with out me having to read the articles...why did the 2 countries split up?  C t j f 8 3  talk 06:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Um...I typed it wrong...why did Czechoslovakia break up?  C t j f 8 3  talk 06:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting....so while it was one country, different parts spoke different languages?  C t j f 8 3  talk 07:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See, I'm not the only person who says Bill and Hillary don't need a ref....what is the diff if I say it is them, or if some website that we link to says it is them  C t j f 8 3  talk 19:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL, so what was all that about yesterday? Had you not seen the episode when u added the fact tags?  C t j f 8 3  talk 21:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Pink
No offense, but your latest edits on Mr. Pink are wrong. Yes, he did say that he had a job that was'nt deemed tipworthy, but that job could still be a waiter. Plus, we don't know what job he was talking about. You'd think that sinse he's probaly 35, he'd have had more than one job. Speaking of his age, I also think deleting that was unnecisary. However, I will keep it like that for now. But the waiter thing needs to be kept, so I put it back on there, just in better words. And sinse I know I'm right, and I know that you will try to revert it anyway, I will report this problem to an administrator if neccisary. I do not wish to be in an edit war with you, so please, accept that I'm right, and try to make that article better, not worse. Remember, if we want to keep this article on Wikipedia, we need to make it contain as much information as possible, until it is no longer a stub.Italian Robot (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully understand what you are trying to do and no offense was meant. The page, I think is more likely to be deleted if it contains too much unsourced material and non-notable information, also the terrible spelling and grammar, I will try to word it better but making the assumption that Buscemi's character in one film is the same character as a cameo appearance in another film is not being very encyclopedic. We can of course make the article comment on the irony of him playing a waiter in Tarantino's next film, just not in the manner that it currently does. If you are to remove the stub tag then it is probably best to split the article up into subsections, also if you can conduct a search for any online sources, it would be a help. Thank you.--The Dominator (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood, but I will leave the next move up to you. Lets just try to expand this article as much as possible.Italian Robot (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Already did, take a look.--The Dominator (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just saw it before you made that comment. Very well written. I completely agree with the statements. Lets leave it like that for now.Italian Robot (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll just find some sources--The Dominator (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Re Czechs
The level of vandalism isn't quite high enough to justify page protection, but I have the page on my watchlist and I will keep an eye on it. It seems like the same person with a changing IP address is messing with it.-- Kubigula (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This stuff with the Czech Republic and Czechs articles is really strange. I'd have to call it vandalism, but it's a very odd kind of vandalism.  In any event, I've briefly blocked two of the IP addresses and semi-protected the Czech Republic page.  If it keeps up on the Czechs page from a new IP address, I'll look at brief semi-protection there as well.  I appreciate your attempts to engage in discussion; it's too bad this person or people don't seem interested.-- Kubigula (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: 71.99.117.144
Hello. Just to let you know, I have reported this user at Administrator Intevention against Vandalism (AiV), and hopefully, he will get a lengthy block for his behaviour. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  04:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Strothra (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. --Stephen 04:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Dominik - I'm familiar with this situation and I will put in a good word with the blocking admin. However, the stuff on the Prague Spring article was not obvious vandalism.  In this kind of situation, it's better not to keep reverting as it can cross the line on the 3 revert rule and appear to be edit-warring.  It's better to get admin assistance if it's not obvious vandalism.  If unblocked, will you commit to avoid even the appearance of edit warring or violating the 3 revert rule?-- Kubigula (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it wasn't obvious vandalism and more a content dispute. You should have waited for someone else to change the article.  I learned this the hard way - I was blocked for the same reason a couple months ago. --Strothra (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK the edits on Prague Spring was NOT a content dispute. Here is the story (and Kubigula can confirm) The anon. user kept changing the same information on these two articles: Czechs and Czech Republic, people reverted and in a detailed way explained it to him, I have talked to the user and told him to bring any issues onto the talk page. He made rude and obscene comments to me and deleted the comments I left on his talk page, also insulting Kubigula. We both sent him vandalism warnings and he was eventually blocked, then he came with a different IP and started to do the exact same edits! I reverted them and continued to be civil, he started randomly undoing my edits on other articles, notably Prague Spring, if you look at his edit summaries it looked like he was trying to confuse the edit history and make it seem like I was reverting legitimate edits, I of course made the mistake of repeatedly reverting and I promise not to do that anymore, it's just that I've never dealt with such a determined vandal.--The Dominator (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is one of those where we need to be thanking people who revert vandalism, not blocking them. A user who leaves comments like  and  is not a serious contributor.  There is nothing in good faith about an edit that includes "This was of course banned by communist regime in Czechoslovakia."  You were 110% correct to revert it. --B (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR, however, states that the vandalism exception is only for "simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking." --Strothra (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See, here's the problem, when we tie the hands of those that revert trolling under the flag of "it was pretty obvious, but not quite obvious enough", we're just shooting ourselves in the foot and stopping a good editor from contributing. Nobody anywhere would be able to make a case that "This was of course banned by communist regime in Czechoslovakia." is a good faith edit.  Making someone jump through hoops to remove nonsense like that is not helpful. --B (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, I think WP:3RR needs to be changed in that respect and I've been trying to argue that since I was blocked on the same lines. --Strothra (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's important to remember what 3RR is and what is isn't. It is a measure to stop edit warring in a content dispute.  It is not a suicide pact whereby we agree to let IP-changing POV-pushing trolls have there way.  If there is no legitimate content dispute, it's not a 3RR violation. --B (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I must however say that I did engage the vandal or "feed the troll" if you will, I didn't know how to request the user to be blocked (though I do now), the "banned by communism" comment actually I believe was good faith (by a different IP, NOT THE VANDAL!) the only reason the vandal kept adding that in was to make it seem like I was vandalizing (and he succeeded there). What the IP was adding was 1) on Czechs "short form in Czech=Čechove", that is not correct and has been stated multiple times, 2)on Czech Republic "short form in Czech=Čechy" also incorrect as that refers to a completely different geographical location. Anyway, my point is that the anon. user was not in good faith because he knew full well that he was wrong, since his edit summaries imply that he does know how to use talk pages, user talk pages and edit summaries, therefore read the suggestions. A troublesome IP like that can get annoying if they keep changing, personally I think registration should be required to edit.--The Dominator (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you back :). --Strothra (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It says that I'm unblocked but I still can't edit, I get this message:

You are unable to edit Wikipedia because someone using the same internet address (an 'IP address') or shared proxy server as you was blocked. Your ability to edit Wikipedia has been automatically suspended as a result.

Note that you have not been blocked from editing directly. The other user was blocked by Stephen for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Dominik92". The reason given for Dominik92's block is: "Edit warring".

This block has been set to expire: 21:47, 8 January 2008.

If you do not understand the reason for this block, you are probably on a shared IP address.

What is up with that?--The Dominator (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He might have only unblocked your username and not your IP? --Strothra (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm logged in though.--The Dominator (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are autoblocked - the block message should give you an autoblock ID. We have to have that autoblock ID to fix the problem. --B (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 742867  --The Dominator (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're good to go. --B (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks--The Dominator (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Dominik - most of these pages are now on my watchlist, but feel free to drop me a line if your "friend" returns. If I'm not around, you can always take it to WP:AN/I.-- Kubigula (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to everyone who got involved in this discussion, as I unfortunately went offline for a couple of hours, through ISP issues. I appreciate the wider issues with the other party and thank Kubigula's unblock after Dominik's assertions that he'll be a little more careful in the future. --Stephen 07:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

less than sixty seconds
hi -

i don't think you're being very helpful by adding three or four "lacking this" "lacking that" tags to an article i create less than one minute after i create it.

why not go find the things it lacks if you're so concerned? that's what i was doing.

--Harlequence (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

While I understand that tagging articles for 'needing references' is helpful, in that it points people to parts of the wikipedia that needs work, it rather sticks in the craw to get an article criticized so, with no help to improve it. Anyway, I suggest you revisit sakacin. It could still use more references. Bckirkup (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Marco Benz
Why mark it for speedy deletion? The page is less than 10 minutes old and you taged it for deletion. The reason for it's creation is there are several other wiki articles with links pointing to his name but previously had no article associated with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Root Beers (talk • contribs) 04:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete this article shortly after it's creation, it did not even have time to come to fruition. I really am disappointed in your actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Root Beers (talk • contribs) 13:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

POV
Hi! Can I ask you why the Arthur Meschian article is not neutral? I used only sourced and well-known material. Andranikpasha (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Gabriel simek
I'm sorry, but I don't understand... what are you doing []? -- Thin boy  00  @250, i.e. 05:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Pink
Good job on that. Do you think we should expand the other characters?--Italian Robot (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good enough. Those 4 are the only real important chracters. Well, mabey Joe and Eddie, but we don't know enough about them. I think Orange could be the eaisest, we know the most about him.Italian Robot (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good. One thing: He's killed by Mr. White, not by LAPD officers. I corrected it.Italian Robot (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Here's an idea: We should make a list of minor characters from the film, including Joe, Eddie, Brown, Blue, Nash, ect.Italian Robot (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest we at least try. And if it's unsuccesful, big deal.Italian Robot (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Freddy Newandyke
An editor has nominated Freddy Newandyke, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Orange
What do you suppose we do?Italian Robot (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. We probaly won't have much longer until it's deleted, so we'll need to make it better quickly.Italian Robot (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ovechkina
Hi, Dominik! Just wanted to let you know that the way you contested Ovechkina's prod is really disappointing. Yes, places are all notable, but you seem to not even have read the prod reasoning, which explained perfectly clearly that, first, the name is mis-spelled, second, that there is no town by this name in Pskov Oblast, and third, that the information in the article is clearly insufficient to determine which one of similarly-named villages (if any!) was meant. Why you'd want to keep a one-liner with so many mistakes is beyond me, but since you had a right to de-prod it in any case, this is a courtesy notice to let you know that I AfD'd the article instead. You are welcome to contest that as well, of course. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I had this same argument over Kresty (which, incidentally, is also on AfD) just a few days ago. The article, one of a a few dozen, was created by a bot (thankfully the bot has stopped quickly enough, but the mess it left is still unbelievable), which, apparently, took the population estimates from the map legend (probably a 0-4000 group or somesuch), because that's the estimate it supplied in pretty much every single article it created.  None of the three villages by the name of "Ovechkino" have populations that large (the districts in which those three villages are located, have total rural populations of 5,605, 33,385, and 11,607 people (as per the 2002 Census results) spread, correspondingly, over 285, 628, and 458 villages.  The actual population, I would guess, would be around 1,000 at best, and possibly way less than that.  A village this small is extremely unlikely to have its own website (I doubt that even the volost it belongs to would have a website).  I am also emphasizing (for the third time!) that this place is not a town (which is easy to find); it is a village (which is not&mdash;many would not even have any Google hits, despite, obviously, being real places).
 * Anyway, the bottom line is that I can easily confirm and reference the fact that three villages by the name of "Ovechkino" do indeed exist in Pskov Oblast, and I can make an educated guess that whatever is currently described in Ovechkina is one of them, but there is no way whatsoever for me or you to determine (based on the article's text) which one of the three it is.
 * Also note that the article very well qualifies for WP:SPEEDY (insufficient context). The only reason I have not speedied it myself is because I wanted to give it one more chance (OK, two chances if you count the AfD) to be expanded by the bot owner.
 * Finally, as far as the misspelling goes&mdash;we would you move the article to? Since we know that there are at least three places in Russia named "Ovechkino", the name would have to be disambiguated (as per WP:NC:CITY).  However, as we established above, we cannot disambiguate it properly... because there is not enough information to do so.  Any comments on that?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course I let the bot operator know; that's a prod requirement. I was leaving the messages on the bot's talk page in order to to overwhelm the person running it; I assume he is watching his own bot's page?  As for the place being "close to Velikiye Luki", that's a very vague statement which really depends on the resolution of the map.  To me, a place can be considered being "close to Velikiye Luki" when it is either in Velikiye Luki's administrative jurisdiction or when it is in jurisdiction of Velikoluksky District (of which Velikiye Luki is the administrative center).  All three of the candidate places are pretty damn far from Velikiye Luki (the one in Ostrovsky District is the closest, but it is still clear on the opposite side of the oblast).
 * You seem to be operating under assumption that I make no effort to identify these bot-generated places before prodding them. Let me assure you it is not so.  I did prod about a dozen of these article for the same reason, but I also corrected errors and re-wrote just as many in cases when I could pinpoint the place without any doubt.  Trust me, if I saw a way to keep this stub, I wouldn't have prodded it.
 * Finally, as for "just responding on your talk page"&mdash;huh?.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect Mark Alexander, painter
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Mark Alexander, painter, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Mark Alexander, painter is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Mark Alexander, painter, please affix the template 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) 01:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bluevalefront.JPG
Thank you for uploading Image:Bluevalefront.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are the actual copyright holder of your image "Image:Bluevalefront.JPG", thank-you for contributing it to the article. According to the message from STBotI above, to correct this, I suggest uploading this image first to Wikimedia Commons and ensuring that it has the correct copyright information associated and added with it. After you have uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, simply return to the article for Bluevale Collegiate Institute and add it to the article as necessary. I also suggest changing the name from "Image:Bluevalefront.JPG" to something more meaningful, such as "Bluevale Collegiate Institute: Main Entrance.JPG" (this will help with properly displaying it in the article, as it was not properly uploaded). If you simply found this image on the internet and it is not your own, then understand that it does have a high probability of being deleted. For more information on uploading images to Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Images, or leave a message on my talk page. Cheers, Sasquatch4510 (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's great: adding images to articles is always good, especially when they didn't have one before. Yes, you need to create a new account at Wikimedia Commons, and you cannot port over your current Wikipedia account information. However, you may and are encouraged to use the same user name. If you do not want to do this, you can still upload the image to Wikipedia itself and it is pretty much the same procedure. I hope this helps, and thank-you for your contributions, Sasquatch4510 (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. For future reference, when adding a picture to an infobox, you may need to state the pixels you want it displayed in. For this case, I made it 200, so for the image size specification, input something like this: "|imagesize=    200px" (please go and take a look at the edit text for Bluevale Collegiate Institute to see what I inputed). Also, when adding an image to an infobox, you do not necessarily need all of the image specifications you need when adding an image to an article's "normal" text body: don't include the criteria such as "thumb" or "right/center/left", etc - simply enter the image file name without the "image:" pre-heading or brackets. Also, keep in mind that you can completely customize the size of an image anywhere on Wikipedia by specifying the pixel size, such as I previously explained. I hope this helps! Sasquatch4510 (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Prague Spring
With regard to your copyedit request: I apologize that I'm unable to provide a copyedit of your article at this time. My to-do list is simply too full right now. However, if you're unable to find the help you need in two weeks (beginning of February), let me know and I might be able to help at that time. (A quick glance at the references of that article suggests they should be more properly formatted. I recommend MLA style; see this page.) Cheers. – Scartol  •  Tok  13:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Dominator, yes, I will look at this. I have one other copyedit request still only half done and two pages of mine on the go, so I'll tentatively say within three days I'll look at yours. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for all your work fixing up this article. It's a big task, but you're doing a great job. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've started to go over the prose. It's short, so I should be able to finish tomorrow. If I should forget again, don't hesitate to poke me further. Marskell (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Dom, I never edit GA, so I can't directly answer. I do edit FA; when I'm done going through this article, I'll present a full critique of it as if it were at FAC. OK? If you really care about the article, there's no point stopping with GA as your goal! Marskell (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh well
We tried our best.Italian Robot (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

ty ses opravdu malej curacek
diskutujes a pritom jdes zalovat? ses blbecek. kdyz si nedokazes uvedomit, ze IP proste nelze zablokovat. geta a life. bez si vyhonit u obrazku toma cruize a neprud zde. 71.99.126.188 (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Czechs
I wouldn't worry, as they're going to be blocked if they keep it up. By the way, please speak in English - banter here and there in foreign languages is OK, but arguing in Czech (presumably) makes my job much more difficult. east. 718 at 02:49, January 24, 2008


 * Thanks for the note. We see this kind of persistent stuff from time to time.  I suggest not feeding it; eventually they get bored and go away.-- Kubigula (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Prague articles
Hello! I saw a comment of yours on ANI related to the vandal targeting Prague/Czech related articles and decided to make you the target of a question I've been looking to ask someone :) I recently started to work/plan work on some Prague articles. Two I've done so far are Nusle and Nusle Bridge as they were my old stomping grounds when I lived in Prague. I wondered whether there was consensus anywhere on what should be kept separate/merged. I asked because I was thinking those two stubs could easily be merged but I wasn't sure if a decision existed somewhere as to why that wasn't a good reason. Neither page has active talk pages. Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I've joined the project. I'd asked in the past but was rebuffed for asking in English so had kind of backed away, but then I stumbled on Nusle last night, cleaned it up some, and found myself drawn back in. Travellingcari (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Will find the diffs. I think it's at home because it was when I was editing as an IP before registering and I don't remember the IP from the top of my head. I think it was around when the articles were being hit by a number of vandals and the IP may have made them leery. Also willing to chalk it to language barrier -- I was perfectly happy to read Czech and respond in English since I can't write Czech much. Travellingcari (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Reservoir Dogs
I don't think that all trivia is useless. Sometimes there are very inane observations included ("Bob had a mustache in the book, but not in the film") but there are also some useful bits badly placed there, like a previous actor being considered for a major role where it could go in a Cast section. Regarding the AFD, sorry if we sounded overly aggressive, but we just favor verifiable real-world context about films. It can be difficult, but not impossible, as you have to know where to look besides a simple Google search. If you need any help with references for Reservoir Dogs, let me know, and I can look for some. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not impossible to find information on the Internet. You just have to use search engines in a specific way.  For instance, you can set up Google News Archive Search to find articles with the keywords "reservoir dogs" at no price (thus, free reading): results.  Or at FindArticles.com, you can set up a search for the keywords "reservoir dogs" "quentin tarantino" in free articles: results.  There's also Google Books, with the same keywords, to have limited previews at the pages of some books that cover the film in some detail: results  Like I said, just have to know where to look. :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 18:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

These things really are exhausting, yet addictive... :-P — Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to focus on film-related AFDs because I feel that I've built up my knowledge and experience of them. I've pitched in at other media-related articles, but I don't frequent the AFDs of certain topics if I don't feel informed enough about that field. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 00:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Review
I'm pretty much done, with only the culture section to go over. I said I'd review this as if it were at FAC, so:


 * Prose and lead are fine. Minor note: "The troops from the initial invasion stayed until 16 October 1968, but only a partial withdrawal took place and Czechoslovakia was occupied until mid-1987" is not strictly logical, as they can't both have left and partially left.
 * A few formatting quibbles. Inconsistent date formats in the references. I notice one missing publisher. "Vaculík, 'Two Thousand Words,'" is insufficient as a reference. Also, do something about that Google books link (#5 at the moment).
 * Reference quality is good on the whole. If you cite the books more than once, you may want to break them out separately in a References section with page numbers under Notes.

These relatively minor issues aside, I would not support this at FAC on comprehensiveness ground (1b in the criteria). Main issues:


 * "In the early 1960s, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (ČSSR) underwent an economic downturn, and in early 1968, Antonín Novotný lost control of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia to Alexander Dubček. On 22 March 1968, Novotný resigned as president, to be replaced by Ludvik Svoboda." Can you provide more info on the country's malaise? Head of the Communist party and presidency of the country are two separate posts, it seems. Who was this Svoboda fellow? Was the presidency merely ceremonial? Most importantly: who was Dubček? Provide details on his background and rise to power. I would create a separate Background section of two paragraphs addressing these things.
 * In the Action Programme section, clarify what reforms were actually implemented versus merely suggested.
 * The description of the invasion itself is weak. Was there any resistance? How many troops invaded? You mention the October withdrawal in the lead but not later. How many stayed and how many left?
 * Relative to the rest, the Cultural impact seems too long and detailed. As other sections fill up this will become less of a concern.

Great work so far Dominik! Whether this would pass GA depends, I think, on how the reviewer interprets "broad." If you do take care of these comprehensiveness concerns, I'll take another look. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "The troops from the initial invasion stayed until 16 October 1968, a partial withdrawal took place although Czechoslovakia was occupied until mid-1987, as Warsaw Pact troops remained along the borders."
 * I'm still not getting this. Again, the troops can't have all left (which is what the first clause implies without a modifier) and only partially withdrawn. Does this work?: "A partial withdrawal took place on 16 October 1968, but some Warsaw pact troops would remain in the country and along its borders until mid-1987." Marskell (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Dominik, I just realized that I posted the main response above after you'd already asked me if it was too short for FA (my talk page has been absolutely jammed recently). Thus my response may have read oddly; you seem already aware that it's too short. If you'd like to leave it as it is, no problem. At the same time, Prague Spring is the main article covering the daughter articles. Filling it out and bringing it up to FAC would be a solid bit of wiki-work on an important aspect of the country's history. Marskell (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't disagree at all that the info is on-site. The one thing I think really should be in this particular article is more information on Dubček. He's the central player—tell us who he is. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Um hm, it's obvious enough; I just found it all a little confusing. Can you dab the body that is referred to with federal assembly? Marskell (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Canadian students' associations
I'm still working on it. Thanks for giving me time to finish. GreenJoe 19:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My bad
My apologies about the deletion. I did it twice now where I click edit on the last section started in talk page and accidently delete the text and not the edit summary. Sorry about that. OldManRivers (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That 90's Show
LOL, are you done editing now, so I can do a bit of clean up...we had an edit conflict...i'll wait, no rush  C t j f 8 3 talk 03:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * don't be sorry, just keep going till your done..i fixed the main things, changing homer doing drugs, to insulin and hotel to apartment...so u can finish up, those were my main edits  C t j f 8 3 talk 03:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * all done! :)  C t j f 8 3 talk 04:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you gonna add a new summary to the intro? We always put one up there...at least for GAs/FAs  C t j f 8 3 talk 04:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * watch your 3RR  C t j f 8 3 talk 04:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That 90's Show
I'm not entirely sure what you are looking for in terms of the couch gag and Magritte. "Ceci n'est pas un couch." "Ceci n'est pas un pipe." What would be a satisfactory reference? ... disco spinster   talk  04:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. I see how it works.  ...  disco spinster   talk  04:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion sorting
When you do the "This article has been included in the list of ____ discussions", as you did on Articles for deletion/Jules Winnfield, please remember to close your tag by placing a at the end. When you don't, it makes everything below your text appear in small text. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI regarding merges of articles
As you may or may not have realized, Articles for deletion is for contested or possibly controversial deletions. While the outcome of a deletion discussion may very well be to redirect or merge the article in question, it's neither required, nor is it even desirable to list articles there to seek permission to merge or redirect them. In fact, in many cases, you can just be WP:BOLD and do it. If it needs discussion, for merge/redirect issues, place merge request templates on the pages and discuss the matter on the talk pages of the affected articles, and consider notifying active contributors of the ongoing discussion on their talk pages. If you are making a broad change and want wider participation, file a WP:RFC, not a WP:AFD. Thanks. Triona (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Help:Merging and moving pages may also be of help - Triona (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)