User talk:MacGyverMagic/Archive/Archive 3

Super robots
Hi. I am really sorry for all theses AfDs. TTN tried to do them altogether and it was rejected. I tried to do 4 of them altogether and it seems they are still disagreements with that. I proposed deletion (PROD) for about ten of them to avoid this discussion and DGG rejected them. (I am planning to send him an email, probably tomorrow I am bit tired right now). I'll do my best to create list of characters for a tv series but not for characters which appear in one or two video games. I really believe there is nothing there to be saved. I haven't looked a lot of what's happening with all this fiction articles around, when I find that really shouldn't be around I am nominating it. This is the last bunch of Super Robots characters. One way or another this discussion will end in five days. Again, I am sorry for flooding. This is the first time I am sending so many articles in AfD. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackie Merrick
Thanks. You did well. You are right with this one, I shouldn't have send it for AfD at all. I 've been merging other characters to the List of past and recurring characters myself. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I was afraid that someone would come and say "Hey, I disagree with the merge. This character deserves its own page. Your AfD lasted only one day and I don't think is valid". I didn't know if we had to wait one more day or just speedy close it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Alpine Elements
HI Mac,

I am enquirying why you deleted the page. It is not an advertisment looking at other companies that are on here it is a descriptive background into the companies history. Could you please advise as to how to make this page more wiki friendly

Regards

Richard

If you can send correspondence to richard at alpine elements co uk

Talkback!
Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Need Sysop Help
Could you possibly (if it is possible!) look at the deleted edits of User:StewieGriffin! as there is a table of barnstars. Could you give me the code? Thanks! CTurnbull (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank You So Much!!!! The account was previously mine as it was renamed. Here's a barnstar for your help:

Britain's Josef Fritzl
Plase take another look at the article, and let me know what you think on the AfD page.:) Sticky Parkin 22:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Jen richer/Jen Richer
Good hello. Sorry to be a bother but I saw you closed the afd for Jen richer. While the afd was active I tried to punch up the article a bit and moved it to the proper name Jen Richer. It would appear that the (resulting) redirect page was deleted per the afd but the new article Jen Richer remains. If you are already aware of this please disregard and accept my apologies for being a pest. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Unique Device Identification
Hi Mac, I think that's a good idea. I really do think there is an article there, and I'm glad the author picked up on it. Yes, it'll need some work, but I would vote for keeping it. I'll be glad to help too, as soon as I'm done with my own homework. :) Thanks for asking, Drmies (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Leroy Jethro Gibbs (2nd nomination)
Articles for deletion/Leroy Jethro Gibbs (2nd nomination) was inappropriately closed early without a clear concensus and on incorrect interpretation of the debate. The AfD was proposing deletion, not merger. The result was '''speedy keep. and reject nomination''' but there was no concensus on that result. This is a substantive procedural error. The AfD should be reopened (through DRV if necessary to gain concensus on relisting) and allowed to run its course. McWomble (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This has gone to DRV. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Paisley (2nd nomination)
I have no problem with a redirect being made after the article is deleted. No matter how likely the search term is, it is not a reason to retain the history. People are far more likely to restore a bad article from a redirect, than to write a fresh bad article on top of one with no history. I shouldn't have to state a reason against a merge when I present a reason to delete. Merging is for when the sources have moderate coverage; no one has shown that. In fact, no one has actually provided proper sources for trivial coverage. Jay32183 (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

So--we'd redirect in order to preserve the history, specifically the business of authorship? I had a different and apparently only partial understanding of that issue on WP, given the phrase "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it", which I see below, and which I took to mean that there is no such thing as 'ownership' over articles. (I did read and understand WP:OWN; this is not the ownership I'm trying to grasp here.) To get to the bottomline: I think the info in Walter Paisley is worth preserving (esp. with the webpages you found as reference) but I don't think it should have a separate entry, and would want it under Dick Miller. What do I vote? Redirect? Thanks for helping me understand this, Drmies (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciated the prompt, and especially your concise explanation of the options. I have modified my vote on the AfD. Thanks again! Drmies (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the original author could not be bothered to find sources for the content, s/he does not deserve credit. We should not preserve the content. If you have sources for expanding another article do that, don't copy this and see if the sources match up. Jay32183 (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Verifiable does not mean the content should be preserved. No sources means we can't keep or merge, and, in fact, it is not verifiable. There's absolutely no reason to preserve the content, since it will not be used at all. While it is nice that you would look for sources to expand a related article, finding sources to support a merge is a waste of time. Also, something being my opinion doesn't mean it isn't true. Jay32183 (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Unified Account
Okay! I'll ask an administrator to delete it for me. Hersfold will probably do it over the course of the weekend, seeing that he's in college right now, burying his nose in studies and a job besides. -BlueCaper (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't need to move it. Just keep it blocked where it is until User:Hersfold can get to it and delete it. Thank you. -BlueCaper (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Micro-linguistics
Dear MGM--remember micro-linguistics surviving AfD? I looked at it again (after nominating another article by the same author for deletion), and have come to the conclusion that the name is incorrect: it should not be hyphenated, per authority of the OED (the God of spelling and usage, as I'm sure you know). Can you take care of that with your unlimited powers? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ely Eel Day
Do you remember why you moved User:MacGyverMagic/WIP/Ely Eel Day to Ely Eel Day. The latter page already had a copy of the material. The userpage was intended as a sandbox (so I wouldn't spam the article history with my name when it wasn't necessary). - Mgm|(talk) 11:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

- I think the problem is that your "sandbox page" still contains category tags, so it appears in the category pages. Perhaps you should remove these if you want to make "sandbox" pages... Cheers, MMc (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

AfC
Hi, thanks for your help at WP:AFC. I just fixed one of the templates you edited. It's just a minor point, but if you could keep the timestamp as a parameter, it keeps the category sorted chronologically. Keep up the good work, Martin 13:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Monsieur Cannibale
That's a very worthy proposal. You up for doing the work?--Remurmur (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Leroy Jethro Gibbs
Following the aborted AfD as user keeps blanking the page Leroy Jethro Gibbs with a redirect.

If AfD is not the forum for dealing with this, what is? Nfitz (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to redirects (this was the initial proposa) but a handful of others keep reverting them claiming it was never discussed and arguments that boil down to "other stuff exists". I would support restoring and full protection for redirects. McWomble (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The article talk page would be a good place as well as Proposed mergers were other characters are also mentioned. - Mgm|(talk) 20:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The article talk page is pretty much dead, as it is now a redirect and someone seems to have protected the page. There was a merger discussion at which didn't seem to have consenus. And while it's called a merger, in reality 99% of the material in the article has been replaced. For all intents and purposes the article has been deleted. Perhaps then the AfD was appropriate, and a DRV discussion is in order? Nfitz (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In my !vote I did say only referenced material should be merged (if I didn't, I should have). If you can reference any of the excised info with reliable sources, feel free to reintroduce it in the list entry and be careful about overusing plot details. - Mgm|(talk) 10:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Vote? Your the closing Admin on the AfD.  Shouldn't you be neutral? I'm having a hard time seeing why this shouldn't go to DRV - do you object? Nfitz (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would object to a DRV. I didn't take my own keep into account when I closed. The article was originally merged, and someone contested it. The correct course of action is either to merge because the contesting didn't provide valid reasons, or find consensus for the merge. There had been discussion, but there was no agreement yet. Avoiding forming consensus by nominating for deletion instead is a gross violation of policy. Also with the article already merged, deleting the history of the originating article would result in a GFDL violation (all edits to material that is kept should be stored) - Mgm|(talk) 01:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As the article was effectively deleted, and the AfD was aborted, I'm not convinced that things were done properly. Perhaps re-instating the AfD discussion would be the best option, if you don't want to go to DRV. I'd sooner avoid creating an unnecessary DRV on this article. Nfitz (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * McWomble merged part of the article before he nominated the page for deletion. Deleting a history pertaining to material that has been merged is a violation of core policy. Whether the merge was correct (how much material was merged, or whether it should've been merged at all) is not something that should be discussed at AFD. AFD is for deletion discussions. By the way, from your actions on the article, I'm getting the impression you want it kept without alterations at all; fighting the outcome could encourage McWomble to nominate the list of characters for deletion too and it doesn't sound you'd want that to happen. I strongly recommend you not to file a deletion review, but if you do I'll repeat the first two sentences I wrote in this comment: deleting the history of merged material is a violation of policy. - Mgm|(talk) 11:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realised the timing. That's bizarre - why try and delete the page AFTER it's been redirected.  I certainly agree with you, but still, I think procedurally a DRV is necessary. Nfitz (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What is this??? WP:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 3? I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here and avoid a DRV - and for the four-day discussion here, you've never once mentioned that a DRV was underway the entire time? Surely, you have a duty to tell me that? Nfitz (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Energy (psychological)
Actually, I was going to close this instead of relisting it but then I noticed a few goober comments, one which was almost a personal attack on the nominator. After discounting those and a "per" keep, the count (including the nominator's rationale) was 2 keeps and 2 deletes. That's why I relisted it. If I were an admin I might have closed it "no consensus". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer!
Thanks for the offer to help, but I've already submitted an article to be created. Cheers. 124.171.169.155 (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sheikh Mohiuddin Ahmed
Hi MGM! There's a discussion on AN (not about you!) that has led to us looking in-depth at another editor's contributions. This produced Sheikh Mohiuddin Ahmed, an article that the editor in question was very keep to have deleted as a hoax. But we've found sources and the article had an (uncertain?) assertion of notability in it. You deleted it as A7; is there any chance you could revisit that decision and see if you would be willing to resore as far as Dsp13's revision of 15:19, 22 October 2008? Thanks! ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. If it helps, The Bangladesh Electoral Commission lists him as an unsuccessful candidate in the 2001 elections. - Bilby (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Scout Moor Wind Farm
I think all your objections have been dealth with now - could you take another look? Richerman (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Mgm_Hoover_the_talking_seal.ogg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mgm_Hoover_the_talking_seal.ogg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sheikh Mohiuddin Ahmed
Now what should be done with Sheikh Mohiuddin Ahmed? I still doubt he is notable and in my eyes, it may or may not be a hoax. I mean, how reliable are the sourves used here?  Jouke Bersma  Contributions  09:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Reply from my talk page:
 * First of all: how reliable are those sources?

Second: how notable is he, as a unknown, seemingly unimportant candidate, who was not even succesful in the first place?  Jouke Bersma  Contributions  10:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

AfDs
First off, Zoids are mainly mass produced weapons within the series. There are a few that are actually "alive", while the rest have a sort of symbolic soul-core thing. There is really no need to go through the effort to explain that, so "fictional weapon" works much better. Real world information means secondary information, which means that primary toys do not assert or establish notability (especially because these are primarily toys in the first place). It would be quite hard to prove that I didn't find any sources for something, so I have no idea what you're expecting there. If you really have such a problem with my nominations, I suggest you just ignore them. TTN (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Where do you look for sources? I have frequently found sources for articles you nomination, including secondary sources, with simple Google News and Google Books searches.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The main problem is that we have very different criteria of what actually makes a source worthwhile. While you may "find sources", I would generally overlook them for being trivial and unnecessary. TTN (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, though, where do you look for sources? And as far as what is trivial and unnecessary, that is all subjective.  What is necessary?  Is anything necessary?  What would be an example of a good character or episode article to you?  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I don't look up every last article, I generally use the main three Google searches to look over the main series and a few example characters. Featured character articles besides Link (The Legend of Zelda) and roughly half of the GA characters are good examples of articles that have necessary information from good sources. TTN (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly think we should require nominators to look up this information and show that they have as while I certainly would agree that not all of these characters can be suitably referenced (which I why I do not comment in every AfD you start; I figure one more "delete" isn't needed in such cases), but for some of them I am able to find references pretty easily with the Google book results which even if they are not always the best, they do suggest that a merge and redirect would be the wise route than an AfD. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Since there are sources which you deem insufficient, showing you didn't find any relevant ones should be easy. The main issue I have with your nominations is that you're not showing why the sources people find are not suitable in your opinion and that you make no effort to merge any sort of information. Information in any random featured article can be supported by something that might look like a trivial reference at first, but makes perfect sense in the context of a larger article. Birthdays are for example notoriously hard to find, so any reliable source confirming a birthday is used when found. It doesn't matter if the reference happens to be trivial because it means the content is verifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 08:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I still don't get what you're expecting. Do you want me to actually show trivial sources when I nominate an article or something? It's generally impossible to rebuff sources because the person that adds them is completely confident that they are good. It is just a giant waste of time and space to argue about it. I merge articles when I deem it to be necessary, while I nominate the rest because they are usually just too badly written to even bother with at all. TTN (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You have mail
Hello! I sent you a couple of emails. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Goodbye (Miley Cyrus song)
Because, in my opinion, there was not a consensus. There were a variety of opinions, and although the majority were in favoring of deletion, some of the "votes" did not provide a sufficient rationale. I relisted the AfD primarily to determine if a merge is a viable option. Please let me know if you feel my judgment was off. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Efteling
Hi Mac,

Are you seriously saying that the current list of attractions on Efteling is not a complete list? Good god. It IS huge. (I've been to Ponypark Slagharen a few times, and hated it every single time.)

OK, you're right--a redirect is a much better idea. But another, and bigger question, what to do with the other 22 attractions? I looked at half a dozen of them, and all of them are really fanpages whose information comes from the park itself--not that there's anything wrong with their statements about size and creator and all that, but surely they need a bit more sourcing if they are to be articles. Rewrite them all? Subsume everything, all 23 articles, into a long article with 23 sections and hopefully a couple of sources? Incidentally, the Dutch article is not sourced any better than the English one.

(I wikilinked one section of the rides in Ton van de Ven, borrowing the format from Efteling.)

I'm going to AfD to support a redirect, and I'm curious to see what you come up with for cleanup and organization. I'll be glad to help, of course. Thanks for the suggestion, Drmies (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Mac, thanks for your note. Ha, yes it is a big part of Dutch culture--I think for us it might have been too expensive or just a bit too far away. Hours in the car, it's always hot, waiting in line... Anyway, I told you about my problems with Mr Cannibale's sources, and it might be a bit better for other (older) attractions. I'm sure it is, actually. As far as databases are concerned, I have access to most of the American academic ones, of course (I work at a university), but not to much overseas, as far as I know. I'll look around a little bit more too, and what I find I'll simply add to the articles or, if I can't fit it in yet, the talk page. Is that OK? it's what I did for Eva Dobell, and I move that info from the talk page to the main page every time I make the relevant edit to the main page. Alright, happy hunting, en tot de volgende keer. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Greyson
Hey, you seem to have deleted TheFed's !vote in your posting; was that accidental or deliberate?Ironholds (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as do I. Thanks for clearing that up.Ironholds (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Beardfish
I'd imagine notability of a label should be established on it's own page, not on a band's page? And I'd argue it's already established there, given a few dozens of notable artists they've signed... Óðinn (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. References added. Óðinn (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Mottos
These are mottos that have been and gone. They have been preserved so the deletion of the pages is non-controversial and standard practice in WP:MOTD. See Motto_of_the_day/Schedule. I hope i used the right speedy tag. Could you delete all mottos from that month as well as October and November (they will be preserved in the schedule page) Simply south (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

See here

AfC news
Dear AfC participant, If you no longer wish to receive messages from WikiProject Articles for creation, please remove your name from this list. Thank you.
 * 1) Msgj and Tnxman307 are organising the AfC challenge! It's a little competition to help improve some of the articles created through AfC and we are hoping that everyone will get involved. For level 1, you just need to bring a stub up to Start-class. Level 2 is improving a Start-class article to C-class. And so on. To get involved or for more information please see the competition page.
 * 2) Those of you who haven't reviewed an article recently might not have noticed the new process that was implemented this year. Reviewing articles is now more enjoyable than ever :) You might like to give it a try. All articles waiting for review are in Category:Pending Afc requests. (Please read the updated instructions.)
 * 3) Please consider adding AFC status to your userpage to keep track of the number of articles waiting for review. At the time of writing we are officially backlogged, so help is needed!
 * 4) There is currently a proposal to bring the Images for upload process under the umbrella of WikiProject Articles for creation. The rationale is that both processes are designed to allow unregistered users to take part more fully in Wikipedia, and partipants in each process can probably help each other.

Zoids
Why exactly do you vote to redirect some and keep others when they're all of the same exact quality? Even if you were not confusing real world information derived from secondary sources, which is necessary, with a primary set of toys, which does not help anything regarding notability, all of these articles contain the same amount of the bad information anyway (compare Dark Spiner to Rayse Tiger). It seems fairly random as far as I can tell. TTN (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I vote for different outcomes because some of them have more information than others. By the way, I've never heard toys referred to as "primary". We're not talking about primary and secondary sources, it is a product. (The sources to describe the product may be primary, secondary or whatever) A set of toys is a set of toys. If someone was to write an article describing their inception, design, sales and reception, you wouldn't have a problem with it, so there's nothing inherently wrong with a set of toys. - Mgm|(talk) 18:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you point out which information warrants expansion? I'm seeing descriptive details that would never make it into a decent article (most toys only receive a sentence or two in the first place) and a bunch of original research. By themselves, toys do not establish any kind of notability in the grand majority of cases. This is especially true for first party toys, which are made directly to correspond with the other pieces of media, so they cannot be used to establish any sort of real world importance. Toy lines can be notable, but I don't believe there are any cases where single figures or models are going to be notable without some sort of large controversy behind them. TTN (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and new questions
Hi, MGM. On my talk page you said "(talk) 11:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)" Thank you, MGM, this is very helpful. I have more questions: Is this the correct place to reply to your post on my talk page, or what? and what is the correct way to show the text that I'm replying to? Sylvia A (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, MGM. Sylvia A (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

RFD Closing
On WP:RFD, the header does not go within the closure tags. The header belongs outside the tags (same as with WP:IFD and WP:CFD). Since RFD has multiple listings on a single page, if the header is within the closure tag, then when the prior section is edited, the starting closure tag will be included at the bottom of the edit box. This confuses people and they end up placing their comments under the closure tag (i.e. comments for the preceding section are placed within the closure tag for the next section). I don't think I'm explaining that very well so please ask if you have questions. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * AFD is the odd man out amongst the deletion processes. I think the closing instructions (as linked to from the main RFD page) are pretty clear, but if if you have any suggestions for changes, I would be glad to hear them. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this edit okay?
Is the last edit of the article NewsX Okay? or just plain gibberish? Link to the before and after page :http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NewsX&diff=257756544&oldid=251022556 by the way ... I didn't edit this I'm just esquiring Xyn1 (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"Mishuga"
Hello Sir: You deleted the article entitled "Mishuga" on December 13th, one which my classmate and I worked together to create, and was required for our history class Because of its deletion, we may not get credit for it, which is a pity since we tried to create a legitimate article. If you could reinstate the article, and tell us what oyu found objectionable, I would gladly correct these mistakes. Thank you, Brantley Pepperman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bipepperman (talk • contribs) 03:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia's bias
It's spelled Systemic bias :) Cheers. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced comment
Concerning your recent comment on WP:RFC/NAME, you misplaced it under an archived discussion (I've done that in the past too, the formatting on that page is confusing). I've moved your comment to what I think is the section you intended, but please check to make sure I did it right. You can reply here, I'll be watching this page. -kotra (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy on Buckacre
I see you declined an A7 speedy on this article. Could you point out for me in there where the article does indicate the notability of the subject?  RGTraynor  20:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

speedy
How can cosmos Pink Shock possibly have been a  "no context"' its a manga, and the producers nad release date are specified, so its clear what the article is about. (not saying the article could possibly survive as is, but that's another matter.) 21:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK entry issue
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nsk92 (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Massacres and Atrocities committed by Manchu rulers
See User:Arilang1234/Sand box --PBS (talk) 10:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Guido
Re. You're wrong:. Care to rephrase? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking again - muchly appreciated. I hope I didn't come over as cranky :) Verbal   chat  13:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I wish you'd dropped me a line about the {not a ballot} template on the MfD, rather than just deleting it out of hand. At the time, User:Inclusionist (who signs as travb) had been leaving notifications on the talk pages of users who tend to side with Guido in content disputes. While his on-wiki notifications stopped when I asked him to, there's no way of knowing what other canvassing has gone on.

These sorts of 'touchy' MfDs often draw inappropriate canvassing and recruitment on both sides, usually in the hopes of intimidating the closing admin into bending to force of numbers rather than carefully weighing arguments in light of policy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly I didn't think it would be a worrisome addition, or that anyone bothered to remove those templates. They're just a heads-up &mdash; to the participants, who may want to reflect on why they're participating, and to the closing admin, who will be cautioned not to leap to conclusions about consensus based purely on the number of comments.  Out of curiosity – even in the hypothetical situation where no canvassing takes place – do you foresee any particular harm caused by the (superfluous) placement of that template?  From my reading of its text, it doesn't say anything that both participants and the closing admin shouldn't be be thinking about anyway.


 * I didn't want to start naming names on the MfD (though I could have, if asked), as the extent of obvious, confirmed canvassing was relatively small. I hoped to avoid further clouding or confusing the MfD with an argument about canvassing interlaced with all the other discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Too late! :D I put it back ages ago, and the MfD has since been closed.  Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hot dog day
Hi MGM,

I am in the process of rewriting the article right now. I hope to have the "clean" version posted within twenty minutes or so. --bdesham ★  16:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have rewritten the article, so there's no need to speedy-delete it. --bdesham ★  19:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

My name is Gsmgm, conflict?(and more to say)
Hello, I discovered that we share username(apart from two letters), would this be a conflict(I just typed in something, it means nothing at all)? And BTW, I discovered on november 5 some apparent vandalism on History of Russian military ranks, where it states instead of company officers über officers. I just can't find the correct response unit, and my notice on the talk page is beeing ignored.

Gsmgm (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

PS I just checked it still says über-officers. DS
 * I doubt anyone is going to mix us up. They'd be pretty dumb to forget the Gs-bit. I don't have time to look at the article you mentioned at the moment. -- Mgm|(talk) 20:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Organoid
Hello! At least some of that is verifiable. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

popup
Thanks for changing. I didn't contact Lupin because he's not very active since 1 year. It's faster using WP:AN. Leag (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Telly stars in plot to raise cash
It's been filled.--droptone (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Across the Border
Is there a particular reason that Across the Border was redirected to Electric Light Orchestra after you closed Articles for deletion/Across the Border? The prior consensus per Articles for deletion/First Movement (Jumping Biz) was to redirect the ELO song pages (such as Across The Border) to their respective albums, which seemed to be more suitable...was there a specific reason that it was redirected to the ELO group page, or was it just confusion? Scootey (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder
Required notice to all parties involved with the Guido den Broeder ban/block/discussion: I have appealed the ban on his behalf at WP:RFAR. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Outreach
WP:OUTREACH now exists in larval stage. Please visit the talkpage to help it pupate. // roux   21:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Motormaster and Override (Transformers)
Rather than going with the whole, AfD is not for merging route, would you mind just changing them to merge? Otherwise, I'm not going to do anything with Mathewignash hanging over the word keep. TTN (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you need targets, I merged them to List of Decepticons (Motormaster, though Stunticons would also work) and List of Autobots (Override). TTN (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to talk about this. Both articles were posted as "KEEP", and TNN went in and deleted the content of both of them despite the ruling, maliciously. He's done this numerous time again. Where do we file a complaint about his willing disreguard for the process? Mathewignash (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've clarified my closure of Override (Transformers). My closure to keep was in the sense that there was no consensus to delete the articles. TTN moved part of these articles to relevant list articles before redirecting them. No content was actually deleted. The help page on merging specifically says: "Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed" so the merge was entirely in process. As per WP:RS, articles can not be supported only by primary references. If you can verify more of the information from these articles, feel free to add those sources and merge said material . -- Mgm|(talk) 22:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I can unserstand if the result was to keep and merge, I didn't read it as such, but shouldn't the merge be treated with more dignity that letting the guy who wanted the article deleted just erase it and then adding 2 sentences to a list page? The judgement said to talk about the merge on the article's talk pages. I come home from work today and TTN just blanked them. I think more than one guy should have some input on how the merge happens and on what page it gets merged to. Why not redirect to the page on the Stunticons for Motormaster, for instance? Mathewignash (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, and probably not very much to your surprise, I fully support MG's reversion of the redirect/merge. Yes, its an editorial decision, but it requires consensus, which is probably not forthcoming. It can be done under Bold, but then it can be undone under the 2nd part of WP:BOLD, which is Revert. And any further action requires discussion. One editor does not get to make contested editorial decision unilaterally.  DGG (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Regina Folk Festival
Hi Mgm. Just to let you know, I've added a bunch of references here, which might address your concerns. Best, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 06:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to your message regarding the article NewsX
Re:

Me: Is the last edit of the article NewsX Okay? or just plain gibberish? Link to the before and after page :http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NewsX&diff=257756544&oldid=251022556 by the way ... I didn't edit this I'm just esquiring Xyn1 (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You:Just like you, I'm not entirely sure. It certainly sounds suspicious, so I'd suggest moving that added content to the talk page and asking for references for confirmation. - Mgm|(talk) 12:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

My Current Response to your last message: What I meant to say in my previous post was that weather that specific edit was appropriate for wikipedia; I can assure you that the info provided there is accurate because I usually watch that news channel religiously Xyn1 (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I Will add a screen shot of NewsX
I will add a screenshot of that channel, Will it be enough to verify it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyn1 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Road Island Diner
User:Somno added some references to the article. Since the fact this was exhibited on the World Fair is now referenced, I'd like to ask you to consider withdrawing your nomination. - Mgm|(talk) 15:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Gladly, my bad. Give me five minutes to figure out how to close AfDs and I'll get rid of it. --fvw * </SMALL> 15:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What happened? Did you forget to look for sources to see if this was salvagable or did you somehow fail to find them yourself? (I totally understand if it was a mistake, in the heat of patrolling, I've made them myself) The user who wrote the article appears to be a newbie and if a newbie manages to put together a coherent text that includes a notability claim like the one about the World Fair, my first move would be to ask them to reference it, rather than going straight to Afd. - Mgm|(talk) 16:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I missed the entire world's fair claim, I came to the article cleaning up some ext link spam from other articles ("one of only three art deco diners in the U.S." was the claim made there, which somehow isn't quite as impressive). Musts read more carefully in future. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 16:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't want to be mean, but I think Rod Machado is a similar article. You did properly search Google, but I think you forgot Google Books. If you take out his own books, there's quite a few unrelated books there that can back up claims that I believe to make him notable. - Mgm|(talk) 16:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but as it stands the article doesn't make any claims to notability, or cite any secondary sources. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 16:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't you consider the highest level of licensing in airline transportation a claim of notability? - Mgm|(talk) 16:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The right to fly heavy planes commercially? No, not really. I'll admit I don't know much about aviation, but I imagine there are thousands of pilots in the US alone who have that certification. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 16:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I still think the claim of the game involvement stands together with the book references. I'll ask the aviation wikiproject for input. - Mgm|(talk) 16:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Creepmime
Thanks for your question Mac; I've answered on the AfD for Creepmime. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You are cited in a discussion
Hello! Just to give you a heads up, another editor has cited this edit of yours here. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 06:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Please kindly reconsider your !vote
Hello, MgM. While I agree with your assessment and recommendation of this article at the time you !voted, I'd like to point out that the article has changed significantly since then, and I think it would impact your opinion. Please review the improved article, and consider changing your !vote. Thanks,  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 06:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Angry German Kid
Hello MacGyverMagic, I was looking through recent vandalism and came across this. You said in the edit summary it was to "prevent recreation" - but it seems an unlikely redirect (absent a few who visit YouTube ten times more often than school) - perhaps it should be deleted and salted? Regards, Caulde  15:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was salting and deleting various pages by (now blocked) who had had edits to the AfD regarding this page (or something similar). It had said, if I recall correctly, that this title had previously been deleted and salted - and was just curious when I found it as an active link. Apologies if I misconstrued my meaning; I do that sometimes. With respect to what you said, that is adequate reason for keeping the redirect. Regards,  Caulde  16:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's relatively easy; put whatever you want at User talk:MacGyverMagic/Editnotice. It should automatically appear above edits (only when adding a new section) to your talk page. Hope this helps, Caulde  16:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent Deletion
I note that you recently deleted and redirected the Chris Hurley page. I am informed that the first step should be to contact you regarding whether or not you are prepared to reconsider that decision.

The main argument for deletion put forward by editors arguing for it appears to be the prohibition on people notable only for one event.

I believe that the editors who argued that in the days before you made your decision erred as the subject person is not noteable for only one event and he certainly hasn’t remained a “low profile individual”. He has been a public figure for approximately 4 years. He has even had books written about him and even the one event that they had in mind triggered a large series of publically known events many of which related to him. Basically to say that the man is a household name in Australia rather than a "low profile individual" would not be (or alternatively would not be much of) an exageration.

There is also reference to the negative POV of the article. However the most recent time I read the article it was solely factual with no negative POV. Indeed ironically, at that stage, one editor put forward a view (albeit unanimously rejected) that it included a positive POV. Accordingly, that problem could have been addressed by reverting the article.

Are you prepared to reconsider your decision?

Thanks Jb3 (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Tathoi won the PAKA.
plz edit it properly.

http://www.filmicafe.com/photo_event_slide_show.php?cat_id=1&subcat_id=2&event_id=1925&sort=view&photo_id=82265&new=new

anywz thanx for the effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupisgod (talk • contribs) 05:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Tathoi won Paka...newspaper link
I have just got the link you need...a newspaper article.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1081223/jsp/entertainment/story_10288461.jsp

it would be great if u can update a picture...in case you dnt have a free image i can send you one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.161.163 (talk) 11:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

William Lobb DYK
I've shortened the hook to remove the alternative names. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
For the barnstar as well as the DYK pass. This barnstar was really unexpected. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Michelle Sith
I assume I was reverted. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yuletide
No matter what you celebrate, this is for you.

<em style="border:1px solid gold;background-color:#008000"><font face = "Jokewood"> Happy Yuletides! <em style="background-color:white">

<font face = "Comic Sans MS">Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)

<em style="font-family:Georgia;color:blue">Blue <em style="font-family:Georgia;color:black">Caper  (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings
MGM, my very best wishes for the festive season stay safe and talk to you in 2009.-- VS  talk 11:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The Gunsaulus Mystery
Those are fine points. I have been discouraged from using the lost film angle as a hook, since many films are lost. When I get a chance, I will add this to the Mary Phagan article. Thanks for thinking of me, and Merry Christmas! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC) <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#000000; background-color:#fffff; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Ecoleetage (talk) wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.

Guacimal and Guasimal, Sancti Spíritus
I got confused by the spelling. But, thanks anyway. Best wishes for 2009. --Jmundo (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar thanks, and merry Christmas!
Thank you for the barnstar! It amazes me that I've never gotten the same barnstar twice, exactly ... well, it looks more impressive that way, and it reflects the breadth of work I do.

Don't worry too much about being outpaced. That edit count probably reflects the recent past before we formatted it the way we did now, when you were prone to making a lot more errors and having to correct them. Also, I have a personal rule that I review until I've either gotten five good ones (theoretically enough to stock an update) or reach the top of a date. That happens more quickly now. Daniel Case (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes
Hi MGM, there's a little bit of fallout from Articles for deletion/Harvard Graduate School of Design, an article we kept for all the right reasons--in that discussion, I asked what the nominator was thinking, and he told me on my talk page. Funny, huh? BTW, Merry Christmas! Happy Hanukkah! Happy Humanlight! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs)

Happy Holidays
Hi, and thanks for all your help and feedback this year. I hope you and your family have a safe and happy holiday season. Best regards for the new year. ;o) -- Oliver <font color="33CC99">Twisted <font color="006699" size="1px"> (Talk)<font color="33CC99" size="1px">(Stuff) 01:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. --A NobodyMy talk 02:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

filmfocus.nl
Hi, filmfocus.nl has been removed from m:Spam blacklist. Merry Christmas. --Erwin(85) 09:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello there
Hi, I was wondering if we could have a discussion (perhaps an IRC) one concerning a few issues... particularly the edit trend TTN is trying to enforce. While his behavior is disruptive, he is not the only person making such edits. I'll go to greater detail once we have a level of privacy.

-- Cat chi? 17:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss something in private with me, sending an email is your best option. I rarely visit IRC and the chance of me visiting IRC during the holidays is even smaller. - Mgm|(talk) 20:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I haven't gotten a reply from you yet. -- Cat chi? 03:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wade Regehr DYK
Thank you for the review of. I have replied to your comments and those of others as well. Kind REgards SriMesh | talk  01:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks
its not hardwired, I write it by hand everytime. I even use it when facing vandals, and very rarely I don't. It is meant to say thanks for listening and reading: if editors cannot understand that it is a civil gesture even in a charged environment, I can't do anythign about it. To vandals, it is usually warranted becaus ethe majority of vandals are not doing it for the lulz but actually newcomers, whom I do not like to bite in part because it is bad for the project, but mostly because they taste awful! Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirects
When I nominated the articles for AfD, I just wanted to get a clear consensus, as a suggested merge template rarely gets any discussion at all, not to mention a consensus. In the future though, I will remember to be bold, I just wanted further opinion on these ones. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

tathoi pic
Hi,i am sending u totally copyright free photo of tathoi.plz check ur gmail. Thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupisgod (talk • contribs) 12:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Diazepunk/New Musical Express
I don't have access to digital copies of NME so I can't find that article. I also checked LexisNexis and a couple of other music-oriented databases with no luck.--droptone (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Carabane
Hi MacGyver,

Thank you for pointing out the discrepancy in my "Did you know?" nomination and the corresponding article. It is the article, not the DYK nomination, which is correct. It is not known whether or not the kayendo originated on the island specifically, but it did originate in the Casamance region; it has been around at least since the 15th century, and is used throughout the area. I should have been more attentive when selecting a fact for the nomination. Here are two other possible hooks:

... that the kayendo, a rice cultivation tool unique to Basse Casamance, is also used for excavation and construction on the island of Carabane?

... that Captain Aristide Protet was shot with a poisoned arrow on the island of Carabane, where he was buried standing up? (grave pictured)

The downfall of the former hook is that the kayendo is also used for excavation and construction purposes in other parts of Basse Casamance, not just Carabane. While the kayendo is important on the island, it is not unique to the island. The latter hook may be more appropriate, although it doesn't deal with the kayendo. What do you think?

Neelix (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the poison arrow buried standing up routine. Is it verified from a reliable source? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The following comments by User:MacGyverMagic were copied and pasted here from User:Neelix's talk page.


 * I think we have an article or list about people who were buried in a standing position. About the new hooks, I like both. Drop whichever one(s) you like best on the hook page. "... that Captain Aristide Protet was shot with a poisoned arrow on the island of Carabane, where he was also buried standing up? (grave pictured)" I'd add 'also' (as I did here) to get a better flow. - Mgm|(talk) 17:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thought, without an article about Aristide Protet, not many people may get the second hook. Any chance of bashing out a quick entry and make it a double nom? - Mgm|(talk) 17:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think Aristide Protet is notable enough for his own article. The only search results for his name on Google are about his gravesite. I have added a proper citation from a reliable source, Le Soleil, a Senegalese newspaper. I'll add it as an alternate nomination. Neelix (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: In my Craft or Sullen Art
Easier said than done - they may even fall under the category of WP:OR. The Mink song I know of because I have the CD containing the song. The piano piece I found mention of online while looking for information about the poem. The interpretation of the poem is OR, but is fairly obvious in reading the poem - I'm pretty sure that references to that meaning could be found. As to its date of first publication and the anthology it was contained within - the anthology has a WP article which gives its date, and also mentions the poem's inclusion (as does the item on the anthology on the official Dylan Thomas website. I've added a couple of bits and pieces, but they're hardly high-quality references. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please re-evaluate...
See Template_talk:Did_you_know? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Any comments? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I was able to trivially find a ref for this statement (it was in the Heath article after all) and added it. Can I get the objection dropped now? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Resource request
Is filled.--droptone (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: DYK hooks
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that meaning. Admiral Norton (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest guidelines
Hi, an attempt is being made to get consensus on the COI clarification issue. You might want to put forward your views at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. --Helenalex (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Angry German Kid 2
See Talk:Emsdetten. Turns out that AGR has little to do with the Emsdetten shooting. I think you should remove the redirect now (but keep it salted). Cheers, Face 15:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Cybiko B2C
Who are you to remove the "Cybiko B2C" page? Within the Cybiko community it was an important program. The fact that the book was self-published should not matter. What matters is that it was a part of the history of the Cybiko and deserved its own page to describe its features and power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.75.129.189 (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)