User talk:Guest9999/Archive 1

Important Stuff

 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Spells in Harry Potter
I saw that you were going to nominate Spells in Harry Potter for deletion. Have you read the deletion policy? -- Boricua  e  ddie  02:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgive me. It appears you have. But, I strongly suggest you to rethink this nomination... -- Boricua  e  ddie  02:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Lord of the Joust on Recent Deleted Entry
Dear Guest9999:

My apologies on writing on your Wiki homepage, but I was not sure where I could get in contact with you. I feel—not only from a professional standpoint but more so from an internet user standpoint—that the moderator who deleted the entry on finger jousting while the debate was going on was unprofessional and uncalled for. You have my most sincere respect for fighting for a sport that though you do not participate in value the efforts of. The WFJF is a student run organization. Myself being a teenager who got this entire Federation rolling which is remarkable in itself considering how much we have done with the media, charities, and events including the website winning a Georgia state championship for websites (a valuable source from the Georgia Educational Technology Consortium if some of the people had checked in our press releases). We have been featured on multiple television programs, radio programs, podcasts, newspapers, and many websites. The best of these sources can be seen on our website if you go to the Media - Coverage webpage. Though the sport is currently small, we are rapidly growing, have over sixty-five members internationally, have held three official events, and have donated a good portion of our revenue to charities. I would really appreciate it if you could re-instigate the discussion on a finger jousting entry and had a hand in (if possible) the recreation of a more professional and better Wiki entry. Unfortunately, I, as the President of the organization, could not do so without breaking Wikipedia's policy and being called a "self-promotional" "spammer" (which I feel is uncalled for from some of the other editors). If you would like to contact me, my email address is LordoftheJoust@fingerjoust.com or you could contact me on the site. I really appreciate everything you've done, and I hope the entry will be reborn. Thank you for your time and may the joust be with you!

Julian R. Gluck The Lord of the Joust President of the WFJF www.FingerJoust.com

Don't worry too much
Hi,

Wikipedia's policies are a tricky thing; because they are freely editable, and because ignore all rules has been a cornerstone of WP since its foundation, a strictly literal interpretation of WP's policy pages will create some strange impressions in the mind of a newer editor. I don't blame you for being confused -- WP:IAR, in particular, can sometimes lead folks to think that Wikipedia is a much more free-wheeling place than it is.

The difference between your view and mine is only experience: you made the suggestion that WP:RS was not a "firm rule", so let's not apply to it to article X. If one reads the rules literally, that's a possibility. The problem is that -- as an experienced editor -- I've seen newer editors try to say that hundreds of times, and consensus never supports it. Without knowing it, you made an argument that was theoretically possible, but universally rejected. Since you were inexperienced, you then fell into the "trap" of mentioning the five pillars as if they, too, were not "firm rules". It wasn't your fault, really -- it's just something you have to learn.

For a newer editor, WP:IAR exists only to reassure you that you won't be blamed if you unknowingly break a "rule." Once you've been around longer, and you understand what the community considers reasonable, then you may start (very, very, very carefully) arguing that some rules should be ignored. For now, you are safest just following the rules that you do know, and seeing how arguments flow around here. This will prevent you from saying things that -- however reasonable they might seem under the letter of the rules -- are never going to find much support in an open debate.

Take WP:RS as an example -- that page is a guideline because editors cannot agree on absolute standards for what constitutes a reliable source in every given case. The devil is in the details, to employ an idiom. However, the general principle that "all articles must have reliable sources" is very firm, and is derived from WP:V, a central policy, part of the first pillar, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. WP doesn't always deleted unsourced material immediately, but such stuff will be deleted if it remains unsourced for very long. This is why your suggestion in the discussion was not a very good one. WP:RS is not a rule that is lightly ignored.

If you just keep "hanging around", you'll catch on to all of this eventually. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The relevant comment that concerned me was your remark of 23:57 15 August, that Wikipedia's principles do not exist. Although you later struck a portion of that comment, the fact that you had ever typed it demonstrated significant confusion to me.  Of course, there is also the concern over the status of WP:RS, which I hope we've now sorted out.  Best wishes, Xoloz 14:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Mordor
If you think that Mordor should be deleted, start an AfD, because a PROD will never pass. Reinistalk 08:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Mass nomination of Middle-earth articles at AfD
Hi there. I see you've been nominating lots of Middle-earth related articles at AfD and PRODding lots as well. There is currently a (slow) effort by WikiProject Middle-earth to merge lots of these articles together. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth for details on this. Would you consider withdrawing the nominations and letting the WikiProject continue its clean up work? Carcharoth 10:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Guest9999- Are you persuing some kind of personal vendetta against Lord of the Rings? You do not appear to have read the work. Remember knock down a pillar and the whole house will all down. Davemitchell1 15:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Smile!


WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. -WarthogDemon 21:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Your notability tag on Isen
Hello Guest9999. There is nothing on Talk:Isen about this. Can you tell us what your criterion is for geographical features of Middle Earth that may deserve articles? People who remove tags often cite 'lack of rationale' when they do so. Thanks, EdJohnston 22:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability tagging
Your tagging of various Middle Earth articles with notability is indiscriminate and without regard for any article's particular merit. After your attempts to nominate a massive number of articles for deletion), it seems clear that you are disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Please desist immediately. Thanks, IronGargoyle 23:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability tags
I've been reviewing the notability tags you've been putting on several Middle-earth articles. This followed the earlier PROD tags and AfD tags you placed. By my count, you have placed around 45 PRODs, followed by nominating 24 articles for deletion at 2 umbrella AfDs, followed by 193 notability tags. All on Middle-earth related articles. Your tagging seems fairly indiscriminate, as you tag minor places along with major locations such as Rivendell, Rohan and Lothlorien. As I said above, there is a WikiProject trying to rectify the problems with Middle-earth-related articles, and I would be the first to admit that these problems exist. Could I ask that you raise your concerns at the WikiProject talk page, instead of putting notability tags on hundreds of separate articles? I'm also raising this at the administrator's noticeboard, as I want to get some second opinions on whether this approach you are taking is excessively disruptive. Carcharoth 23:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. I don't actually think the notability tags will help very much, as the average reader will not know how to establish notability. You are far more likely to get results if you work with editors who know the subject area. Would you consider removing the tags and providing a list at the WikiProject talk page? I'm still raising this at WP:AN, because I would like an answer to the general question of how article tagging should be handled. Carcharoth 23:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter cruft articles
Largely, I agree with your thoughts about all the fancruft in the Harry Potter articles. But could you possibly start a more all-encompassing discussion on the Harry Potter WikiProject discussion page? It seems that you are using the same deletion criteria and having the same arguments many times over on different AfD pages. If consensus could be reached in one place, deleting/reworking articles could possibly go much smoother. Just some food for thought. -Phi*n!x 00:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Are we nearly there yet equation
Hi there. Since you voted on this AfD, BillC and I have posted some further analysis of the whole "media equations" phenomenon - I was wondering if you'd mind having a look at it and commenting again at the AfD. Personally I don't think that a couple of days' press coverage during the silly season automatically makes something notable, especially when the exercise had more to do with getting publicity for Skoda than solving important mathematical problems. I wonder if I've done enough to persuade you? Best, Iain99 12:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek
...Need I say more? They could do with a lot of AFD's. Judgesurreal777 19:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I just suggest it in case you are itching for more deletions, as many in universe articles are there. :) Judgesurreal777 14:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter Cruft
After writing a proposal about these articles, I found out about this one. Would you mind looking at mine, and seeing if we can combine ours into one? Thanks. i said 21:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Wooster School
Please consider withdrawing this nomination. I am certain you did made an innocent error, albeit an unreasonable effort to check notability. Assuming good faith on your part, please also check for changes to the Heymann standard at the Wooster School article. Bearian 21:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Round Yellow Face


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Spread the wiki love!

Franken Berry
Howdy, I started a discussion on Talk:Franken Berry about a removal which you reverted. If you had mistaken the removal for vandalism (an easy mistake to make), don't worry about it, but do stop in if you had some content concerns. Thanks and keep up the great work! --TeaDrinker 00:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive conduct
You revert me, reinserting the promotional links, with an automated edit summary? That is rather disruptive. El_C 11:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not trying to be disruptive, I am sorry if you interpreted my actions as such. My thinking was that by removing many of the links a lot of the band names became unsourced and so should have been removed. Surely if the sources are removed the information supported by said sources should also be removed. Sometimes links which might appear to be promotional have to be used if there is no alternative - if the point of the source is to establish that the subject exists then I do not particularly see the problem. I think it could potentially be far more problematic to just list the names of bands saying they are Neo Nazis without showing any evidence to either prove they exist or to distinguish them from other unrelated bands of the same name. I feel that the article should either be reverted to the point where the references were in place or all of the (now) unreferenced bands should be removed. Guest9999 11:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]]
 * Then maybe the notability of those bands, if they must rely on these un-reliable sources, is simply not up to par... Perhaps only those bands that are noted by mainstream, reliable sources should be mentioned, then. Feel free to comment on the article's talk page, or on the Incidents report (here), but please do not revert, for now. Thanks. El_C 11:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would not say notability would be the issue as - "The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines." (WP:NN) - but verifiability. I think the question is whether the potentially promotional sources given qualify as reliable sources which can be "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". Basicaly as I am unwilling to click on the links - vary of where they will take me and my hardware I pulling out of the debate. I do though think that - as mentioned o the talk page - any bands without a source should be removed. Guest9999 12:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]]
 * I don't see how that explains your revert, in that it restored links that you are unwilling to, for the sakes of our reader, visit at least once. Sure, feel free to remove whatever you see fit, or conversely, to look for mainstream, trustworthy sources. El_C 12:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologise - I now agree I shouldn't have reverted the edit whist being unwilling to view the sources in question. From the URLs given and the discussion on the talk page I made assumptions about the content which I should not have acted on. I am very sorry. I would still like to restate the point that there should not be unsourced bands on the page in violation of WP:V and WP:RS especially in this case as it could be potentially harmful to any namesake bands. Again I am sorry for acting without the full information. Guest9999 12:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]]
 * Apology accepted. Certainly, I accept that point. And I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me. Best, El_C 12:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, just dropping by to say that your current user page is class. --Kizor 15:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Edwards
Please see Talk:Jonathan Edwards (theologian) regarding your move of this page. I have to say that your edit summary asserting that there are other Jonathan Edwards that are "far more well known" is a bit of a stretch to say the least. None of the other Wikipedia entries even come close to the historical and societal impact of the Edwards in question. Adding "(theologian)" just makes it confusing.Brian0324 18:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Unforgivable curses
I bet we could try to finish a merger of this now, its been up for long enough, doesn't seem like there will be any objections. Judgesurreal777 23:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 21:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Signature
Hi. Just so you know (in case you don't already), to sign a comment, all you have to do is add the four tildes: (  ~  ). You seem to be adding the brackets ( ~  ) in with the tildes. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I know that the square brackets are not neccessary, they were something that I mistakenly added during my first few edits on Wikipedia. I decided to continue adding them partially as a reminder for when dealing with new users that they won't always be familiar with the way that Wikipedia works and that I was once (still am in many ways) in the same position - and partially just out of habit. Having said that, if there is a technical reason why it's not a good idea I have no objections to stopping. Guest9999 (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)]]
 * No, no. Feel free to continue.  Just wanted to make sure you knew they were not required.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation page format
I noticed your recent edit on firefly (disambiguation). FYI, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) indicates linking to a primary topic first, then listing alternate uses. ENeville (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR
I don't agree that 3RR applies in this situation and have made my explanation on the page. I've also suggested (but did not open up an official complaint) that any sanctions applied to me should also be applied to you. We'll see what they decide.Shsilver 16:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Drunkenness
I removed the image as it violates Biographies of living persons. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

WT:AN
I moved your post to the main section of the Administrator's noticeboard. The talk page is largely for discussing issues related to the noticeboard itself. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

David
I note that you moved David to David (biblical king) and redirected David to David (name). If you think of moving a page again, please at least consider taking the following actions: I found David on 7 nav templates. It seems to take a while for those to get updated for the purposes of "What links here", so I don't know how many of the 1,000 or so links to David in article space will remain after that.
 * 1) update the nav templates which include that page.
 * 2) update the redirects which are clearly intended for that page such as David (bible) and David (king).
 * 3) redirect the original page name to the disambiguation page, as this enables all the newly incorrect links to be fixed using WP:POPUPS.
 * 4) remove the redirect from the talk page.

If you would be prepared to go further and help to disambiguate the incoming links to David, that would of course be very welcome. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Presidential opinion polling deletions
Re: Articles for deletion/Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008 The other pages you have suggested for deletion deserve separate sections on the deletion discussion. Or at minimum, group the graphics into one section/discussion, and consider other groupings for allof the other items listed. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Grouping several controversial pages together almost guarantees a non-consensus result. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT
i am curious about some of your actions, and the reasons behind them. WP:NOT states that statistics can be a bad thing in articles, as i am sure must be obvious. However it does so for very specific stated reasons, specficially "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles". In the case of many of the opinion polling articles relating to the elections, they appear (to me at least) to be very clear and not the least bit confusing. This relates to the debate regarding the deletion of those articles. My primary concern however, is that you modified WP:NOT which specifically said that there were situations where statistics could be useful, citing the article you recommended for deletion. You then cited this policy as advocacy for deletion of the page. The policy said that the page ought be kept, and you decided, without discussion on any talk page that i have found, to change the policy. You then incorrectly cited the policy (the policy does not forbid pages with statistics, it forbids them if they do not have sufficient explanation) as a reason for deleting the page. This seems to be a violation of WP:NPOV. Can you please justify your change of policy?

Given the time importance of this issue, with no response, i will revert WP:NOT to its state before you edited it, but i would rather come to a consensus with you (as i am also active in the discussion on deletion of the opinion polling articles), so that the policy is more clear. Thanks, Perpetualization (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Though not active in editing all of the pages put up for deletion, on the pages i was editing, particularly the republican state by state, i noticed a distinct effort to add those things you said were missing, particularly on the more recent polls. Regardless, the point is no longer relevent as the discussion to delete is concluded, however, with your permission, i would like to post that list of changes that ought be made, in a slightly altered form, to the discussion pages for all of those groups so that they can be modifyed to be made more clear. Thanks, Perpetualization (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Afd
Closing afd discussion in a single day is not the big matter. I did not find any single argument that stands against keep. Even the nominator was not sure about its notability. In my opinion, apparently it meets WP:N. If you think this closing was unjustified, you are most welcome to reopen it with the help administrator. Thank you--NAHID 06:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WP:DPR to understand. Thanks--NAHID 14:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in, but I guess I have something to say here. Apparently this user had closed this AfD only to have the closer reverted by Hut 8.5. And also, this person seems to be unaware of the fact that "The discussion lasts at least five days" (see the deletion policy). Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Update Hello. My comment on the Admin Noticeboard has come to face serious slander that violates both WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. What to do? Aditya (talk • contribs) 08:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wade Load
I suggest withdrawing that and removing main characters from the nomination. Otherwise, it'll just end with "no consensus" in the long run. Afterwards, either a separate AfD for each character or a merge discussion would be better for the main characters. TTN (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Your note
It was a bunch of articles that were nominated at the same time by the same editor in an apparent spree against some Jewish-related articles. It was a good-faith spree, I should add, because he genuinely believed they weren't notable, but there were so many that it got a lot of people upset. It had also followed some discussion that I now don't recall the details of, but some people felt it was "revenge." Anyway, I started getting a ton of e-mails about the noms, so I speedy-kept them until the issue could be discussed on AN/I. That's all I can remember I'm afraid. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was told off for that at the time. I never close AfDs, and I was kind of panicking anyway because of the numbers involved, so I speedy kept then bid a hasty retreat. :-) SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 02:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim Possible Characters
With all due respect, having that many character on a single page was a bad idea to begin with. This show went 4 seasons and 2 movies and in doing so built up a LARGE list of character, including them all on a single page pretty much automatically make it too large and also risks raising the wrath of NFC, but failing to merge in data would be a violation of the AFD which ruled that a merger should take place. A single paragraph isn't a merger, and is a violation of the spirit of the AFD. - perfectblue (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Where one character has several incarnations it is perfectly OK to insert a single image for each significant incarnation for exactly the same reason that it is acceptable to have a single image for a single character with only one incarnation. This being that the image serves as an object illustration of that incarnation being used for the purposes of identifying said incarnation and conveying improtant information about them.


 * Animation is by definition a visual medium. The look of the character is a key part of the character as it conveys the artists intent and many messages about the character that are vital to the audiences understanding of the character, and where the image of the character is changed as part of the character change an image is the most appropriate way to show this. For example if a character is supposed to be mean and surly in one incarnation and sweet and nice in another, and this is shown visually, then an image is vital to the readers understanding. - perfectblue (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (Tried to respond this to you AN thread):
 * FWIW, as closer, the initial list was quite okay, and the complete reinsertion was entirely off&mdash; as I had taken the time to remind in the message closure only material which was not original research or plot summaries was appropriate to merge. &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation case about the proposed merger of Firefly characters
Since no agreement could be reached through discussion about the proposed merger of Firefly characters, a mediation case was started in which you were listed as party. If you wish to comment, please see Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-09 List of characters in the Firefly universe. – sgeureka t•c 15:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINE
Do you think we should just placfe this in your userspace? Since the essay ois being linked to for the reason I am attempting to add to the page, it makes sense to try and outline that in there somewhere. It used to be that essays attempted to encompass both points of view. Maybe a merge of Don't demolish the house while it's still being built into There is no deadline would solve the problem, otherwise I'm not sure how to square the obvious edit war between us. Should the essay reflect more than one opinion? I believe it should. I believe that's fair, honest respectful and avoids divisiveness. I believe that's the Wikipedia spirit. I'd also be interested why you didn't take this to the talk page of the essay, again, that's usually guided. Hiding T 21:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. Hiding T 22:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Jakks Classic Superstars Action Figures
In the DELREV, two people left comments that concerned me that deletion might not be the long term correct thing for this article, (although I think I did the best job possible at evaluating the AFD and did close it properly): Therefore under the Deletion Policy caveat: if there is any doubt do not delete, I chose to relist it. I also voluntarily recused myself from closing it again. JERRY talk contribs 01:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) November '98 copy of Lee's Toy Review magazine with a Jakks WWF figure as the main cover story
 * 2) relist on the basis of new information

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. --User: (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoopsy? :)
First this then this? :) Fnagaton 23:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Television episodes/RFC Episode Notability
Hehe, I'd been patiently writing out my statement and then got edit conflicted by yours...which holds pretty much the same view as mine but looks so much prettier :-(! Darn you :P Seraphim Whipp 03:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I think your wording will probably be easier to interpret for contributors with less knowledge of the various policies and guidelines mentioned than mine will. Guest9999 (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The two statements are rather similar; great minds think alike? :) Seraphim Whipp 16:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

your sig
Hi. Your sig has extra pairs of square brackets in it; pairs at the beginning and end. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Navbox styling
That is a good question and unfortunately I do not see where it is specified on Navbox what is exactly meant by "necessary". On WP:NAV, it says "Navigational templates are not arbitrarily decorative" and "should be justification for a template to deviate from standard colors and styles". Perhaps there should be more elaboration on what is considered good justification / necessary and does that include changing the style to fit with the topic they describe? Let me know if you find anything or ask about it on a talk page. « ₣M₣ »  01:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

| Apple
Thanks for your vote. I have addressed all of your mentioned examples of errors within the article. Please post any other error or POV statement you have seen. Your help to make this article FA is appreciated. &Lambda;ua&int; Wi  se  (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * WOW! You have reviewed the article extensively.... I have fixed all the issues you reported. Thanks for devoting your time and effort to this article. &Lambda;ua&int; Wi  se  (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, on the contrary. Your review was detailed and comprehensive. It is appreciated mate :), thanks! (P.S. the extra pair of square brackets you use (used) are original, shame you don't use 'em no more :-) )&Lambda;ua&int; Wi  se  (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)



SMG
Out of date and unnecessary. Most games just cite a cumulative worldwide sales total, as that's what matters. Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dorsey High School Editor USAD ACADECA
The guy who has been reverting the article, user USAD ACADECA, has made some enlightening comments on the user page assigned to my IP address (he claims to be an administrator with one and only one topic to his credit, repeatedly reverted at that). I do not think that user USAD ACADECA has any real interest in discontinuing his nonsensical editing. I have no vested interest in continuing with said user, so if you wish you may continue to monitor the page. For my part, I'm through with it.

Thank you. 76.124.78.88 (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops
Thanks for the note - I'll be more careful with future deletions. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Havant & Waterlooville F.C.
Replied to your comments on Talk:Havant & Waterlooville F.C.. Govvy (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the barnstar, it's much appreciated, and thank you for the push in the right direction. Hiding T 23:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Just a thank you for your time and review. -Susanlesch (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Harry Potter characters2
Template:Harry Potter characters2 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. mitrebox (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks from Happy-melon
I just wanted to say particular thanks for your support for my RfA, which closed (74/2/0) this morning. Your comment and support was very much appreciated, especially given my answer to Q3. Happy‑melon 09:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Psycho analysis of simpsons characters
Okay, will do. SGGH speak! 17:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter spells
You sure are doing a hack job on that article. Isn't there any way it can be cleaned up, rather than simply removed. It says itself, "Suggested" and there is no harm for it to be there. Grsz11 (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, sounds reasonable to me. Grsz11 (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Images
Hi there, I have removed the speedy tags from Image:Fembots 2 APIMOM.jpg and Image:Fembot 3 APTSWSM.jpg. The text of the tag reads "It is a non-free image with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it is an image that fails some part of the non-free content criteria and the uploader has been given 48 hours' notification (for images uploaded after 2006-07-13) or seven days' notification (for images uploaded before that date). (CSD I7)." You did not do that. Also, Image:Fembots 2 APIMOM.jpg has an adequate rationale for the two articles it is in. Any questions can be left on my talkpage. Woody (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Our messages got crossed in cyberspace. I would ask you to read the criteria before attempting to tag them again. I have used the correct tag for fembot3 and I have fixed the rationale for the fembot2 image. Regards Woody (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed that when I left a note over there about their deletion. What is key here is that you left a note immediately after tagging. That is not 48 hours notice as is required under the criteria that you quote. Woody (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes you are right. I completely misinterpretted the way WP:CSD was written. Thanks for fixing my mistake, I won't make it again. Keep up the good work. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, if you hadn't tagged them, User:BetacommandBot would have got round to it soon enough. We all learn from our mistakes, and if you ever have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Happy editing and Regards. Woody (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I missed a step
Thanks for cleaning up after me.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad I could help. Guest9999 (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

FPC
The size of the image is too big We can't keep it there. Sorry. - Milk's  Favorite  Cookie 21:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Horcrux
Having to defend the Horcrux article from you every three months (almost to the day) is boring. If the article needs fixing, then fix it.  &empty; BRIT  07:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

CSD nominations
Hi there; when you nominate an article under WP:CSD for copyvio (or indeed for any other reason), please do not then blank the page. An admin has to assess the validity of your reasoning, and it is less convenient to do so if we have to restore the page first. Thank you. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 14:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry if I have given offence; it was not my intention. There was, of course, never any doubt about the fact that the article needed to be deleted, and if I led you to believe that I thought otherwise then I must apologise for doing so. Your point about removing content speedily is well-taken. May I introduce you to the copyvio template? If, rather than blanking, you insert this template then all concerns are satisfied. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 16:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey
No problem. :) I just assumed you probably knew more than I about it, so I let it be. I've made mistakes before. :P Anyways, happy editing! - Warthog Demon  03:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Banishment in the Bible
LOL – you caught me! However, I do believe the piece does deserve a space here on Wikipedia. Either way it goes, thanks for pointing out my misdirected arguments. :-) Shoessss | <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat  00:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Horcrux
You didn't actually create the GAR. I will if you think you're getting too much flack. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, maybe it was. The delay in listing is confusing me. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your Zelda template
Don't you think it shouldn't make the screen have to scroll to see the whole thing? o_O It's kinda...large...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that did the trick :) Looks fine now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I merged two of them. If i missed one, let me know. <font color="1E90FF">Chris <font color="4169E1">lk02  <font color="2A52BE">Chris Kreider 13:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I merged the 3rd one. If there is ever anything else I can do for you, let me know. <font color="1E90FF">Chris <font color="4169E1">lk02  <font color="2A52BE">Chris Kreider 14:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarvani Ramcharran
I got a message saying that this article was similar to one's I've posted, and now it's deleted? Um, I never posted this article before. I just made it because my cousin and I had some talk, and now I'm confused.

Struck a Nerve
This is a song, not a band, so not eligible for A7. However, I agree it isn't notable, so I redirected it to the album article. J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I just expanded it instead. I hope none of you mind. Alex (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It wasn't me who just started the article. I just found out that a page for that song was already created, so I decided to expand it a bit. That's all. Alex (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

New
the article has just been created and it clearly says underconstruction and that it's a stub!!--Kingrock (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

High school pole vaulters
Mmm, but worth a whole encyclopedia article? I think it sends out a wrong message and people will be trying to add all sorts of high school people  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 21:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it passes on that. I would propose it for an afd if I had time or could be bothered to. Its not exactly Sergei Bubka is it lol. I must admit I see the word high school and I just clam up. If one year down the line I see a full length article on a record breaking article I'll be very surprised. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 21:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: TTOA AfD
I removed the notice because, at that time, no justification had been entered. Looking back now, I see you did enter one after I removed the notice.

I do not disagree with your justification for marking the article for deletion. I do, however, argue that the article should not be deleted. It is not untruthful, nor is it mis-informative. Though the reasons to keep the article are limited, reasons to delete it are nonexistent.

cc: dedicated deletion discussion edit: the discussion page in question is locked; cc not followed through

Kkishkon (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, please forgive my lack of formatting knowledge...I do not care for the editing interface on this site, it defies established text entering standards so I am not concerning myself with studying it in depth.

If the article is to be deleted, then it is to be deleted. Please note though that as the co-founder of the organization (which formed only months ago, mind you), management (including myself, obviously) are attempting to spread factual information about our organization through appropriate mediums. If it isn't too much trouble, please do visit our site (ttowners.com) and poke around...if you feel bound to the exact policies and are inflexible with regards to that binding then I do understand and can't hold anything against you for it, though some flexibility to help us get on our feet would be greatly appreciated.

It appears you are located in the United Kingdom. Though this may be going out on a limb, you may not understand the special circumstances surrounding these particular vehicles and enthusiast clubs for them due to your location, as these vehicles were North American products only. The circumstances largely centre around a huge lacking of information about these vehicles existing online, and therefore any exposure to owners of sources to obtain such information is a simply huge public service.

Kkishkon (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Rachel Aldana
Thanks for your note, and for the notice that you're considering going to DRV with it. I have no especially strong thoughts as to whether the article should be kept or deleted; as you surmise, I was closing based on what I saw as the consensus. On the question of reliable sources, I think what constitutes a reliable source depends on the material in question. Frankly, I think tabloids are probably pretty reliable when it comes to bust size. Moreover, the article doesn't appear to contain any especially contentious material, which is the sort of thing that might require a more ironclad source. I trust it goes without saying that I will take no offense if you decide to take this to DRV; I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know if you do, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Knee-jerk?
The stuff you just re-inserted in Michael Schenker is so obviously copyvio, spam and low quality, you cannot possibly have looked at the change you reverted. // 81.224.240.125 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

List of characters in Artemis Fowl
The article has been requested for a while and is useful to the project. I do not understand your reasoning. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000">George D. Watson  (Dendodge). Talk Help 00:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't we come to a compromise. If you want it to go, AfD it.  Whoever gets consensus gets it their way.  Fair?  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000">George D. Watson  (Dendodge). Talk Help 01:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Many articles get split off from the main article and there's a lot that could go in its place on the Artemis Fowl page. Keep some of it and add a 'main article...' thingy to it.  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000">George D. Watson  (Dendodge). Talk Help 01:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the idea of a list? To provide links to, and a basic description of, the main articles for the list's content?  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000">George D. Watson  (Dendodge). Talk Help 01:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
Hi there, thanks very much for informing me of that I wasnt aware of that. Hot200245 (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Grapes (band)
The Grapes are pretty important to jam band culture. In addition to averaging 250 shows a year and touring across the United States - they were headliners at the all the Atlanta Pot Fests from the 80s-1997, as well as having helped launch the success of bands like Widespread Panic - who opened for The Grapes several times. I think they are pretty notable.Addionne (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Info - I have added some content and will be putting more over the next little while. For the record, I am not in this band ;) Addionne (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

2 Pistols
I've pulled the tags off of the 2 Pistols article. I have an official bio from his (it's just one guy, despite the name) record label. I'll use that to rewrite the article as best as I can within the next couple hours. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Uhhh
I didn't make that article! What? I saw it made, And it read, "Poop", so i tagged it. Why did it say I was the first editor? Check the history of Useless junk I only tagged it! Weird! ~ <font style="color:#708090;background:#000000;">Dark <font style="color:#000000;background:#708090;">Zorro 00:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Is Ok! It probably happens 1 in 1010 times! ~ <font style="color:#708090;background:#000000;">Dark <font style="color:#000000;background:#708090;">Zorro 00:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Mount Rushmore photo
I would have further elaborated on the license information, but someone already deleted it for some reason. I don't understand why they decided to do this without consulting the person who actually uploaded the image. That really is too bad because I thought it was a very informative picture, which is why I even bothered to get permission from the author to post it. Oh well :( -- <b style="color:#960018;">mcshadypl</b> <sup style="color:#960018;">T <sup style="color:#960018;">C  04:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

hello to guest9999
I noticed you tagged my 'article' on Yako from melt banana for speedy deletion. The content of the article was simply a link to an interview with herself and an explanation of this link. Although this is not a 'proper' article it provides a resource of information for anyone interested in learning more about Yako which is what Wikipedia is all about right??

I dont understand why you have a problem with this! Please respond, Kiiruyu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiiruyu (talk • contribs) 00:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect Laverkin utah
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Laverkin utah, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Laverkin utah is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Laverkin utah, 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) 19:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment from
Hi this is Boatzalive. Why put my page for speedy delete. It is a good page and it demonstrates how the person is important. thers is no point in deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boatzalive (talk • contribs) 21:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sergey Letov
Hiya Guest9999. I've declined speedy deletionof the above. You may well wish to take it to WP:AFD. Pedro : Chat  21:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

db-bio
I'm confused; you reverted my use of db-bio on a motorcycle club because it wasn't a person. Isn't db-bio for groups as well? That's what it says in the box that is placed on the page. Thanks. Rnb (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Shattered Time
I will expand the Shattered Time article. Sorry for putting up a bare-bones article of it first. The Rypcord. 18:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for your comment regarding one of my pictures. Though the result is hundred percent oppose, I learned many issues related to photography from your and others comments. Since I am a novice in the filed of photography, I am still in my learning phase and would like to receive tips from you. I hope you won't mind if I request you in future to guide me through your comments regarding my pictures. Cheers. -- <font color="Green" face="tahoma">Niaz (Talk •  Contribs)  14:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Outlaw Star
Template:Outlaw Star 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. Collectonian (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Boy Better Know
I've just deleted a recreation of Jamie Adenuga, which you successfully afd'd 2 months ago at Adenuga. Some of the related articles, also previously deleted, seem to have been restored. . I suppose it's possible they've become notable since he eariler afds. But I have no knowledge at all in this area and I dont want to go further on my own accord, so I call your attention to it. DGG (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

NFCC 8 revisited
You were involved in this discussion, so I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content.  howcheng  {chat} 21:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete of cross-namespace redirect
Thanks for your note. I have done as you suggested. HokieRNB (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Harborside Financial Center
I added some info so is it okay now? Alaskan assassin (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

D'oh!
Thanks for pointing that out! I feel really stupid now as I am [usually!] a fairly good scientist and a Chemistry enthusiast [although I prefer Physics]. How could I have missed that! Trout-slap in order methinks. Thanks again, I'm changing them now. >< Richard  Ω6  12  10:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Taylor gerik
A tag has been placed on Taylor gerik requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. KurtRaschke (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Crunk Club AfD
Greetings! I saw you nominated Crunk Club for deletion. There is a related article—another unreleased single by the same artist—at Broken into Pieces. Is it okay if I add this to the AfD? —C.Fred (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN
I've been going about taking care of the transclusion nonsense slowly for the past two days. I've replied at the WP:AN thread as to how, and since WP:AN gets edited a lot I thought I'd let you know here. Let me know on my talk page if you object to my method or anything like that. Cheers. --<i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i> (Talk - Contribs) 23:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Professor DJ Kalupahana
I saw the "Dj" and assumed he was a disc jocky. My bad. :-) -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 00:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive
Have you ever thought about Archiving your talk page? I can help.<font face="Bauhaus 93" size="2.0" color="#7D0008"> King <font face="Times New Roman" size="2.3" color="#FFBE26"> Rock Go Devil May Cry 4 01:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA
Wish you all the best for your RFA -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 11:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

an FPC discussion
No problem. Spencer T♦C 00:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"In-universe"
I noticed you used "in-universe" as a reason for deletion in an AfD. In most cases, a very simple sentence that explains that the article is about a fictional subject is all it takes to fix the faulty perspective. It is much faster to add the sentence (and wastes less time of yours and others) than to hold an AfD.

The Transhumanist 21:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA analysis
I think you need to rethink your approach. To Wikipedia.

Your stance on fiction, for example. Perhaps you should adopt a "live and let live" philosophy, except where such articles violate copyright law (for example, many fiction lists are derivative works - and this appears to apply to the List of Spelljammer crystal spheres which you tried to get deleted and failed). We can't risk copyright problems, because they make Wikipedia liable for damages and potentially subject to expensive litigation. Therefore, material protected by copyright that goes beyond fair use should be vigorously removed. But you didn't go after the previously mentioned article because it violates copyrights...

You're definition of what is and is not "encyclopedic" is causing much friction between you and others in the community. It's ironic that the term "encyclopedic" which originally meant "everything" now stands for considerably less, even in this community. Here it means "whatever you would expect to find in an encyclopedia". Circular definitions like this are dangerous, and can be used very much like the phrase "it is God's will" to justify actions. For example, "It's not encyclopedic" given as a reason for deletion, isn't helpful, and is potentially harmful, because it may masquerade as a reason when in fact it is merely a synonym for "it should be deleted", which is redundant in deletion discussions. "It should be deleted because it isn't encyclopedic" is the same as saying "it should be deleted because I believe it doesn't belong", which is the same as saying "it should be deleted because it should be deleted". It's not very helpful.

Wikipedia is redefining what "you would expect to find in an encyclopedia", and is rapidly pushing the envelope. Its scope is evolving over time, becoming more and more "encyclopedic" in the original sense of the word. It's becoming more and more encompassing - Wikipedia is growing in detail, and in its scope in terms of what is notable enough to be included.

What if you are spending your time today deleting things that will be allowed tomorrow? In the final analysis, wouldn't that have been a waste of time?

Wikipedia has grown so large that a person can spend his or her entire lifetime trying to delete a particular type of thing that others adamantly defend, and barely scratch the surface. Is it really worth it? If others value it so much, then maybe including it is what Wikipedia means to them. If the material does no harm to others, then what harm is there of letting it stay? More significantly, is it beneficial to delete it? Is it worth the time it takes? You yourself measured the conflict on fiction in terms of man years. Life is being spent. Including your life.

You're a skillful writer. Wouldn't it be a better use of your time to build islands of knowledge in this sea of information?

You can't find an island if it doesn't exist. Isn't it more worthwhile to create new valuable islands for people to visit than sink those that are merely irrelevant? People come to Wikipedia for different reasons. Entertainment is one of them. Fiction is a form of entertainment. But people also come to Wikipedia to learn. Which is more valuable, to delete articles on fictional universes (like D&D's multiverse) which many readers find entertaining and will therefor continue to develop and defend, or writing articles that will help other readers achieve wisdom?

Let me suggest that providing wisdom is more worthwhile, because it is far more tragic when someone seeking wisdom doesn't find it (because it isn't there to be found) than when someone seeking game material to enjoy his day off from work finds loads of fictional stuff to keep him happy. Why wreck ones' happiness to the exclusion of helping others in a meaningful way? Who cares if the reader of fiction reads fiction on Wikipedia, as long as students of valuable knowledge find what they need? After all, those two may be the same person at different times.

I hope I've given you some meaningful things to think about.

By the way, I've been building maps of the islands of knowledge on Wikipedia. If you build such an island, please let me know, so that I may include it on the maps so that others may more easily find it.

The Transhumanist 21:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of RX (film)
Hey, just so you know, I'm not the author of RX (film). I moved the page from it's redirect Rx Movie, but decided that it should be a candidate for speedy deletion. Sorry for the confusion. Rwiggum (<sup style="color:black;">Talk /<sub style="color:black;">Contrib ) 20:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, I'll be sure to use that next time. Rwiggum  (<sup style="color:black;">Talk /<sub style="color:black;">Contrib ) 20:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)