User talk:Dravecky/Archive 11

January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted page enfos
So how would i be able to revive this page? Any way you can help me with this? this is a school project and i have to make it survive for 2 weeks without it being deleted. I provided information that it is notable. It is simply like the dota page, this is also a custom map of Warcraft III http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dota. Can you explain the difference and allow me to make changes to the topic i have decided to hit upon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricyCPSC1000 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Defense of the Ancients is a well-written, well-referenced article good enough to have earned the "Featured Article" distinction. The speedily-deleted Enfo's article was not referenced to reliable third-party sources and the article neither asserted nor proved the notability of the topic.  Has Enfo's been written up in any gaming magazines?  Blogs and forums cannot, in general, be used as sourcing to prove notability.  Read WP:GNG and good luck with your school assignment (but you might consider another topic with better available press coverage). - Dravecky (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Template:Attrib-WC
You just deleted the template as a violation of policy on what? Disclaimers? This was NOT any kind of disclaimer, but a template to give attribution to a source of the article. I am a sysop/bureaucrat on two another wiki sites, and one of them we have a past president of the Wikimedia board who warned us that we needed to provide this kind of attribution of pages we take from Wikipedia. Isn't this a double standard? Also, the guy who nominated this is attacking everything I do. If you're an admin, perhaps (if you are not opposed to a long read) you would take a look at his uncivil behavior.Д-р СДжП,ДС 01:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The deletion criteria appeared valid when I reviewed it but, assuming good faith, I have restored the template so that you may continue to refine it and a more robust discussion about its future may take place. - Dravecky (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Adventure Con
I have nominated Adventure Con, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Adventure Con. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  04:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete of article David A. Steinberg
Hi, you deleted the David A. Steinberg article due to A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content). I'm willing to concede he didn't invent the internet, however he did found the company that began the process for new cell phone distribution from retail store to the internet similar to the movement from books sales from the retail store to online at Amazon. The company he founded still dominates online sales for cell phones even though it went through bankruptcy. I find this interesting since the cell phone has become a "need", replacing land lines in the conscious of consumers. I haven't updated the article other than to add the references that were requested by Juliancolton. I can add the additional information for importance this weekend. Amonkey71 (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean David A. Steinberg. (The link in the header is wrong.) The Inc. and Washington Business Journal articles do certainly lend credence to the notion of his notability but the article's lede, as written, did nothing to assert that notability.  I'll restore the article but would request that you substantially re-write that first paragraph. - Dravecky (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. I'll work on it this weekend. Not the greatest of writers so let me know if what I put up isn't any good. I can handle criticism.Amonkey71 (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * updated lead and added some references to consumer complaints and bankruptcy of InphonicAmonkey71 (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:JamesRecordRedstone.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:JamesRecordRedstone.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that upload was from very early in my time here. I've added source info and a proper license tag to the image info. - Dravecky (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:WHK-1963-NASA.jpg
File:WHK-1963-NASA.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:WHK-1963-NASA.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Dravecky! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) D. P. Singh -

WP:NODRAMA/2
Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! -- Jayron  32  02:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Chaosdruid/sandbox
Hi

Thanks for apologising but none was necessary :¬)

THe page is about to be deleted anyway as there is heated debate and no consensus (plus they didnt bother to go and look at my changes lol)

thanks for the apology tho

--Chaosdruid (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Coast to Coast AM Affiliates
Once again, the list of coast to coast AM affiliates is under attack. Your input would be awesome on this subject. Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Coast_to_Coast_AM_affiliates_%282nd_nomination%29. Thanks. --milonica (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention although upon reviewing the list and weighing several factors, I have expressed a "Delete" opinion as part of that discussion. - Dravecky (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

radio articles
I noticed that you just reverted my unlinkings of bunching items such as city, state. Please see WP:LINK, which advises against bunching and vague links. This is logically to be avoided where a more specific link that contains a link to the broader area (e.g., a state or country) lies immediately before. "Radio station" should not be linked (common term). Tony  (talk)  05:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The relevant example in the page you cite says "As explained in more detail at Help:Links#Wikilinks, linking can be "direct" (Riverside, California, which results in Riverside, California), or "piped" (Riverside), which results in Riverside in the text, but still links to the article "Riverside, California")." I merely restored the direct links to the articles in question.  Further, please do not remove the (year) in radio links from the infoboxes.  After long discussions to which you were a party the strong consensus was that these links were appropriate and relevant in the context of the infobox. - Dravecky (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Further, please do note remove links to radio station or broadcast license as, to continue to quote WP:LINK, "Think carefully before you remove a link altogether—what may seem like an irrelevant link to you may be useful to other readers." In an article about a radio station, these are certainly relevant links. - Dravecky (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that no one will click on your 1980, because it's "hidden"—that is, it doesn't say where it's taking you. Explicit, clear linking is encouraged, and it is far better to put the year in radio link at the bottom under the See also section.
 * You had restored links such as "radio station", which is not suitable for linking under the guidelines (nor is city or sheep or paper or television, except in very special circumstances). I did indeed "think carefully" before removing them, but had no doubt they are unsuitable. Can you explain what in the article on "radio station" will help the reader to understand the topic of an individual radio station? Is it so obscure a term that it needs diversion to a completely new article to understand the topic of, say, WARL? I have explained in the edit summaries that bunching links to ever more general targets is not good practice; it is mention in the first section you refer to at WP:LINKING. Tony   (talk)  10:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your blind reversions of my edits along with your choosing to link to disambiguation pages such as Providence, Kent County, and Pendleton over the strongly-preferred direct links borders on vandalism. I would politely ask you to cease such activities. Also, a single link to radio station in the lede of an article about a radio station is warranted on its face and needs no elaborate justification from me.  - Dravecky (talk) 08:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see: your reversions of my work are not blind reversions, then—is that the spin I'm meant to swallow. Dude, there's nothing polite about your actions, so I don't impute politeness to your words. There is nothing in WP:LINK that "strongly prefers" (note no hyphen) direct links over either piped or redirected. If there is, I'd like to know where. WP:LINK says: "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations,...". It also says: "When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link,". Your reinstatement of links to such items as "roman numerals" (wrongly capped) and "radio station" (what on earth would that be?), words that a seven-year-old English-speaking child would be familiar with, has degraded wikilinking in these articles. Please justify your breaches of the guideline. In particular, you could start explaining what in the article "radio station" is worth diverting the reader to so they understand the given topic better.
 * Do not start accusing me of actions bordering on vandalism or I will bring the matter to another forum. Tony   (talk)  09:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To what you called a "petulant, rude post" (which it wasn't) you were just plain petulant and rude. Tony, you seriously need to come down off you high horse and chill a little.  What Dravecky is talking about you have done to a good number of articles without consensus and without discussion.  Come off the high horse, discuss your changes like an adult not a petulant child and chill a little. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 10:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * NH: Thanks, but I don't appreciate name-calling, even at someone with whom I am having a contentious discussion. WP:CIVIL is not just a good idea... - Dravecky (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologizes. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 10:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (de-indent) Direct links to articles are strongly-preferred to links to disambiguation pages. You need policy quoted at you to know that changing a link to Providence, Rhode Island to a link to the Providence disambiguation page is just plain wrong?  Your repeated reversions to these sorts of links across multiple articles strains any assumption of good faith I still make.  Also, I do not appreciate being threatened and would ask you to keep your remarks both factual and civil.  - Dravecky (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) Your friend needs to be put on a leash. (2) In what way did I "threaten" you? By calling your post "petulant and rude"? Well, it was that, certainly; statement of fact. (3) When are you going to explain what it is in radio station and roman numeral that helps the reader to understand the topic of a particular radio station; and how those links are not common terms. (4) I cannot find the word "strongly" on the DAB page you linked to above. I'm wondering where this elusive "policy" is. Tony   (talk)  10:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're missing a question mark at the end of point 3. Shubinator (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So ... are you lying about this supposed wording at DAB? I cannot find it. Nor is DAB policy. I will go ahead and unlink the two items in question unless you can supply reasons that are consistent with the requirements at WP:OVERLINK. Tony   (talk)  05:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you unlink them I will mark you for vandalism. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 06:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dravecky, I think this may need to go to ANI. This isn't just affecting radio station articles.  The user is removing links from other articles....lots of them.  This is without consensus or discussion.  I am not going to revert anything other than radio and TV stations (as the user has been warned not to continue to edit war and continue to unlink on those pages) but with the users edits expanding beyond radio and TV, getting more eyes and more opinions may be necessary. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 06:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)