User talk:Melsaran/Archive Aug 2007

a question
Can you please check out the talk page of papa roach?? there is something that you should see! plase read that where is written:genre the third! Melodic Horror

hope
I hope you read a question! Melodic Horror


 * Sorry, I'm not really interested in the Papa Roach article, I merely reverted the trolling of a banned user once. You'll have to discuss the matter with others. By the way, please sign with four tildes ( ~ ) instead of three, then I can see the time at which you posted your message.  Mel sa  ran  13:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for participating in My RfA which closed successfully. I am honored and truly more than a little humbled by the support of so many members of the community. It's more than a bit of a lift to see comments on my behalf by so many people that I respect. I'll do my best to not disappoint you or the community. - Philippe &#124; Talk 06:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Congratulations with your adminship!  Mel sa  ran  13:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Private Lessons (1981 film)
I have to ask what was incorrect about my rv on 5 June that warranted reversion? Did you want the bit about the Fresh Prince in there, or was I mistaken in my methods? Enlighten me. Varaaki 05:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions
Please do not add the wi template and redirects for all manner of dictionary words. wi is to discourage the creation of illegitimate articles. Otherwise, they clutter the main namespace and discourage the creation of legitimate articles. There is already a message pointing readers to the wiktionary page for terms without articles. The wi templates all eventually have to be deleted. The productive solution upon finding a link to a dictionary word is to unlink the incoming link. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, I didn't know that. Thanks, I'll use them more sparingly from now on.  Mel sa  ran  13:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Man O War, Man O' War reasons
These are similar enough to be the cause of spelling confusion, and the working title (ie the title used during the development of the character of Tentacruel NOT the name used in the series) is low notability. Hence the redirect of Man O War to Man O' war over a reference to Tentacruel. I note that the only link to Man O War is a reference to the race horse. GraemeLeggett 09:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to disagree. Indeed, the name is not really notable, but a hatnote should suffice. It is, after all, the only thing in the list that's not written with an apostrophe. This is the usual construction for these issues (compare Transport for London, it has a hatnote referring to "Transport in London" and the article is about the company, rather than a redirect to some disambig page).  Mel sa  ran  13:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sugarcult
Hey, just thought that I'd drop you a note to say thanks for sorting out the discography! I thought that it might've been an invalid use of the album covers and had been meaning to look into it further. Thanks for taking care of it! Apollosfire 16:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! I was surprised to see that these covers need to be removed (someone did it at Westlife discography), although it makes sense when you think of it.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 16:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hatnotes
You seem to be involved with hatnotes. Do you feel one is acceptable at Thor (Marvel Comics), Thor (Comico Comics), Thor (comics), and Count Dracula? There are probably others, but let's decide whether they're needed for these pages. Join the discussion at ThuranX and see if you can convince this person on all the circumstances when dabs are actually necessary. I've tried and failed. Thanks. Lord Sesshomaru


 * That's really easy, in fact. Just point him at WP:NAMB.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 03:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems he didn't take it well, see this. Can you assist me in these edits using the WP:NAMB consensus as the reason? Lord Sesshomaru


 * I was already busy with that. :-) I cannot really understand why this editor is so stubborn, the guideline is pretty clear in this case.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 04:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw, there are so many others out there, some of which I forgot but I'll let you know if I find a myriad of them again. I'll help you in reverting to prove our case. :} Lord Sesshomaru


 * Thanks, I'll keep an eye out as well.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 04:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - A few I just recalled were Paifu and Belzi. I placed disambiguations there thinking they were necessary but I'll need your help on that. Sakura Haruno's dab may need fixing as well. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru


 * Did some tweaks. The hatnote at Belzi is actually very handy, usually distinguish is used for these kinds of issues, but in this case it is a redirect, so redirect is more appropriate. I placed some "anchors" in the Wandaba Style article so that redirects can be made for every individual character, and fixed the hatnote at Sakura Haruno accordingly. Did the same with Paifu. How do you like it?  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 04:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Great. Though the Sakura Haruno for Wandaba Style doesn't seem to target properly. Does it matter if it is a large "#REDIRECT" or small "#redirect" link? Lord Sesshomaru
 * No, it's because you changed it to a redirect to Wandaba Style. Because I saw the names were in Japanese and English (Japanese places the family name first), I just made anchors for the first name and the last name. "Sakura" works, "Haruno" works, but "Sakura Haruno" or "Haruno Sakura" doesn't, because I didn't think it was necessary (although you can create those anchors if you want).  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 12:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I was wondering why you used "Sakura" only, it didn't work the first few times I clicked it, hence, that was my entire reason for changing it. I just tested the redirect of yours and it worked okay now. And you may want to look at this, it isn't the first time I've dealt with this user so maybe you could persuade him with something more than WP:NAMB and then remove that disambiguation? Lord Sesshomaru
 * Doesn't matter, fixed it. :-) and I'll take a look at that page.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 15:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
If you look at the Count Dracula page you will see Sesshomuru accused me of vandalism first. Are you going to give him a warning? He is deleting stuff against majority consensus. I am trying to retain useful hatnotes. If you look at the Count Dracula Talk page you will see that Sesshomuru has engaged in a series of unjustified personal attacks againt me to which I haven't responded. I am a constructive editor - he wants to delete stuff against majority decisions. Colin4C 19:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see, that was wrong as well, but it happened weeks ago, so I am not going to warn him for it now. If I would have seen it, I would have warned him, no worries. And I understand that you are a constructive editor, however, I fail to see why there is "majority consensus" for a hatnote which is explicitly`advised against by the hatnote and is also not useful (as I explained on the talk page).  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 20:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to say that the reason some of us are in favour of the hatnotes is not to be arkward or because of egotism - its through having to deal with the particular edit history of the various Dracula pages and the confusion between Count Dracula, Dracula the novel, Vlad the Impaler the historical figure, and Dracula in popular culture. I'm clear about it myself, but I'm afraid its not immediately obvious to new editors. Basically I'm appealing to common sense. The Dracula article retains its hatnotes. Should these be now removed? If so won't that confuse people? If I said 'Dracula' to you, is it immediately obvious that I am referring to the book or the fictional character? How will people know without hatnotes? Colin4C 20:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dracula in popular culture won't be confused with this article when you link to it in summary style using main. And I fail to see how Count Dracula gets confused with Dracula; the latter article already has a hatnote referring to the former. Just refute anyone who proposes to merge these articles or something like that.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 20:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So why are hatnotes permissable at Dracula but not at Count Dracula? Colin4C 20:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The first one, a reference to Count Dracula, is legitimate because Count Dracula is often simply called Dracula (without the title in his name). It is not legitimate in Count Dracula because the book isn't called that way. The second one is legitimate because there are more things called "Dracula". It is not legitimate in Count Dracula because Dracula doesn't redirect there. Someone looking for, for example, Vlad Dracula isn't going to type "Count Dracula" in the search bar.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 20:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look at the talk pages of the Dracula articles you will see that it is a fact that considerable confusion has occured. E.g. there were those who thought that Count Dracula is 'really' Vlad the Impaler, and those who would like to import details of the Dracula films into the article about Bram Stoker's fictional character. I'm willing to bet ready cash that if the hatnotes are permenantly removed we will have a relentless series of dumb edits which those of us who are keeping an eye on the article will be kept permanently employed correcting. Not only that but I guess that some will actually try to redefine the article according to their presumptions. If the nature of the article is not made explicit, how are we going to persuade them that they are not indeed right to redefine it anyway they want? Colin4C 20:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, I didn't make any personal attacks, let alone be incivil to fellow Wikipedians. And this here is the entire reason why I said "Reverted vandalism"; Colin4C undid the edit without leaving an edit summary, demonstrating that my edit was vandalism. I saw this as bad faith and reverted as such. And like Melsaran implied, object to all those who desire to combine the pages, there is no need for any dabs to prevent this from happening. Lord Sesshomaru


 * Heh, look at what ThuranX said. I'm guessing this is revenge because we removed his precious Thor hatnotes, does he have the right to even call it trolling? Lord Sesshomaru


 * Probably. As this time he knows he cannot revert it (the guideline is very clear, Q.E.D.), he is removing your comments and being uncivil instead. Sigh.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 23:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Colin, if your only concerns are people proposing merges etc, that is not a valid reason for a hatnote. Hatnotes exist to serve the reader, not the editor. But for your sake, I added a huge (non-visible) infobox on top of the article (see []), and another (visible) box on the talk page (see Talk:Dracula).  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 23:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you mean to link to that? I think your external link is broken. Lord Sesshomaru
 * Oops, I used both and the entire URL. Fixed, thanks.  Mel  sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 23:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, just one thing: could you please sign with four tildes ( ~ ) instead of three? This makes the date and time also appear, which is quite handy. :-)  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 23:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As much as I despise the timestamp, I think I should get used to it from now on. You aren't the first to tell me that, I'll sign with four tildes every time I enter a talk page. Thanks for defending me from ThuranX. Cheers! Lord Sesshomaru 23:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, makes things much clearer at times ;). And I didn't "defend" you (Wikipedia is not a battleground), I merely stated my opinion. This time, the hatnote was clearly inappropriate, and his removal of your comment on his talk was clearly done in anger. You're welcome, though. Have fun with editing!  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 23:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing this. :-) Picaroon (t) 20:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, that looked a little weird ;-).  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 20:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah but hold on, this is incorrect. Note the "[a]ll numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)." The numbering is left to match with the proposed decision page so people can crosscheck the pages. Picaroon (t) 20:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it? Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks for telling me, I reverted it.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 20:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 00:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

A personal attack?
On ThuranX's part, wouldn't this qualify as a personal attack? He said in his comment, and I quote, "... you're being a couple of jerks about it behind the scenes ..." IMHO, he deserves a warning. I understand his point about my "Excelsior!" comment but he didn't need to take it so far. Or should we just forget about it? Lord Sesshomaru 02:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a personal attack, but I didn't feel like aggravating the issue further and/or get into a dispute. Warning him because he made a personal attack against me while in a conflict with me will probably only let things escalate and may seem a little pot/kettle-ish.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 02:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi!
Hoi Melsaran! Bedankt voor je support vote. Wat men hier 'uncontroversial' noemt, blijkt op onze nl.wikipedia nog wat voeten in de aarde te hebben, maar het zal ook daar wel lukken lijkt me. Vriendelijke groeten, F r e e  style  15:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Tsja, op nl.wiki stellen ze zich wel vaker aan, puur om de procedure/bureaucratie. Ik weet overigens niet of ze het op prijs stellen als we hier Nederlands spreken, so let's communicate in English from now on :-).  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 15:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Bien sur. Ehhh... of course! :) . Nice namechange by the way. I think we should get something like too on the dutch wiki... It can take ages for an admin to notice your request over there. Well, see you around!  F r e e  style  15:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's bring it up in the Kroeg. Seems like a very good idea to me, as long as it isn't abused (i.e. an article gets protected because of a content dispute and someone keeps on putting it up to request that his version is protected instead of The Wrong Version).  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 15:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I'll make an example in Dutch of the template first and then I'll ask it in the village pump. I'll get to it a.s.a.p. (I'm also enjoying the nice weather this week-end so I don't know for sure how soon that is.) F r e e style  18:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Product (business)
Hi, would you take a look at these edits I made to the page? I'm in doubt of whether a disambiguation is needed there or not. Lord Sesshomaru 14:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course not, "merchandise" can't refer to anything on the disambig page product other than "product (business)". By the way, it may be better to use rather than , as this makes it look like a personal message ;-).  Mel  sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 14:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What's the difference exactly between and ? I don't receive anything different, could be that my computer's software is old. Lord Sesshomaru 14:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the "subst" thing substitutes the template, so in my case it would display Melsaran instead of PAGENAME in the editing text.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 14:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok. Should one of us remove the dab on that page? If so, which guideline should be exclaimed in the edit summary? I'm presuming WP:NAMB. Lord Sesshomaru 14:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There's not really a guideline for this, the hatnote is just pointless. I fail to see how the word "merchandise" can refer to anything on product other than product (business).  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 15:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected bats
Please leave a civil messages on my talk page or do not leave them at all. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What part of the message was "incivil"?  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 21:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:HARASS. In this case, I would consider it harassment (trolling) to repeatedly message someone about an issue you disagree, especially while they're in the middle of trying to correct said action.  I was in the process of removing protection from the article when you left a message which was less than polite.   You'll catch more bees with honey.  Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why was that "less than polite"? I merely said that I didn't think that the article was being heavily vandalised, that's all. Sorry if you took it personally. But instead of removing my comment as "trolling", you could also just have replied with "okay, unprotected". ;-)  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 22:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons
Thank you for withdrawing your recommendation to delete the Wikimedia Commons article. Please remember that AFD is not a cleanup venue and that if something can be fixed or merged, it probably shouldn't be listed for deletion. Thanks! RFerreira 02:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * True. The AfD gave the article a boost though (it has a few sources now), but you're right that it's not really the appropriate venue for bringing important unsourced articles under attention. Whack me with a WP:TROUT if you want.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 02:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Take a whack with a sardine instead, I am glad that you did self-close the nomination. Thanks! FrozenPurpleCube 17:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help about the user templates. :) Intelliguy 15:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome :-). I was surprised that the template wasn't just named "User Philadelphia".  Mel sa  ran  15:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Internet Slang Reliable Sources
"Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to List of Internet slang phrases, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Melsaran 19:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)"

I'm unsure what would be considered a reliable source for slang, if you can help me out here that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murasicht (talk • contribs) 21:28, 7 August 2007 (Never mind, I have found a website which has been used to verify other abbreviations on the same page. I will use this also.)


 * I am sorry to say this, but when you edit the article you see boxes with "ANY UNSOURCED ADDITIONS WILL BE REMOVED" all over. This is because otherwise, everyone can add the personal slang of a few friends to the article. As you can see in the current version of the article, every entry has a source. Perhaps your addition is listed on one of those sources, in which case you can cite it. There are various internet slang "dictionaries" and lists out there.  Mel sa  ran  19:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Template cleanup
A few templates you created, Template:1 source&#32;and Template:1source, have been marked for deletion as deprecated and orphaned templates. If, after 14 days, there have been no objections, the templates will be deleted. If you wish to object to their deletion, please list your objections here and feel free to remove the   tag from the templates. If you feel the deletions are appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 02:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Raised an objection. By the way, aren't you supposed to subst templates like deprecation notice?  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 11:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Substitution leaves wiki markup that shouldn't be left on talk pages. The templates I listed are actually redirects, and they have absolutely no transclusions or uses. What is the nature of the objection? --MZMcBride 17:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I just realized there was a message in the external link objection you left; I only saw the large objection graphic the first time. I realize that these are legitimate redirects, however, in the three months that they've existed, the only link to them is from me listing them on this talk page. They haven't been transcluded or linked to at all. Is there any reason to keep them? --MZMcBride 17:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not really that they are in active use, but I see no real reason to delete them as these are valid and logical redirects to a template. Why would you delete them?  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 18:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are thousands of unused templates, see Special:Unusedtemplates. If the templates are orphaned and unused, there is no reason to keep them. While the redirects are certainly logical, three months have elapsed and everyone seems to be using Template:onesource. So is there any need to keep the unused templates? --MZMcBride 18:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've re-listed the templates as deprecated. --MZMcBride 03:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well, delete them if you want. I personally don't think that there's anything wrong with redirects, but it's unused, so deleting it won't harm.  Mel sa  ran  11:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Certain hats
Frankly, I don't know what qualifies as an appropiate dab anymore. See this removal of one at Naruto. The user gave a sturdy reason, yet there's a dab at BLEACH that is about the same cause. Since you're sharper at looking at these matters than I, can you please see those aforementioned and also the dabs at Sailor Moon, Lupin III, Saint Seiya, Dragon Ball, and DBZ? Are all accurate and do all fall under WP:NAMB and/or WP:RELATED? I'd greatly appreciate it if you would fix each of them, if needed. Thanks again, Lord Sesshomaru 14:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed a few, the rest are fine as-is :-). The hatnote at Bleach (anime) was inappropriate, because the chemical substance (Bleach) is not written with all-caps.  Mel sa  ran  14:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your changes but you're sure about the Bleach one? I've seen the Bleach chemical brand in all caps before I was familiar with the Japanese series. See & . A google hit shows the series more popular than the chemical, likewise. Comments about that all caps usage? Lord Sesshomaru 15:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just on the cover of a product. The first link spells nearly everything on the product in caps, but the advertisement next to it reads "Bleach". Still, I'm not really familiar with this, so you may be right.  Mel sa  ran  15:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure of it, often I shop for food, items, detergents, and normally I purchase the Tide BLEACH brand, or sometimes Classic Bleach or Fabricare. Don't mind if I put back the disambiguation to Bleach (manga) based on this discussion? Or something else might you have in mind? *(Something I've just noted BTW, a google search of Bleach (including image search) depicts the series moreso than the common chemical substance) Lord Sesshomaru 15:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to, I'm not so sure on this matter :-). And that's probably because pop culture (including animes) is much more popular on the internet than chemical substances... lol.  Mel sa  ran  15:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That is so, but look at WP:GOOGLE. I'm giving great thought about having a major move request according to this update — Bleach should be moved/renamed to Bleach (brand) so Bleach (manga) could be moved/renamed to Bleach per popularity, though the brand could still be more popular. Should I spark a move request on both talk pages regarding these google hits? Lord Sesshomaru 16:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the manga/anime was probably named after the brand/substance. And Google hits are not everything, popular culture related things tend to rank high on the internet. But feel free to propose the move, and see if it gets support.  Mel sa  ran  16:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Who knows? I'll give it a try in a bit. Thanks so much for your thoughts and concerns Melsaran. I really appreciate everything you do. Lord Sesshomaru 16:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what we're here for, building a good encyclopaedia :-).  Mel sa  ran  16:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry have to throw my cents in here, while many people around the world may know what Bleach (manga) is, if you ask the majority of the people what it is they'll stare at you like you're on drugs, but if you ask people what Bleach is, 99% (of English speaking anyway) will know what it is. Anyone who does laundry will know what Bleach is, but only people who watch Anime will know what Bleach (manga) is. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking, nevertheless, feel free to propose the move if you want to. Don't think that it will succeed, though.  Mel sa  ran  02:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, Malevious beat me to it. Took the words out of my mouth, I now think that more people around the world will always know of the detergent chemical rather than the Japanese series. Doubt that the majority of us [the human race] watch the Bleach anime or read the manga graphic novel; WP:GOOGLE isn't a guideline or policy, if it were, I see no reason why there shouldn't be a move based on acclamation. Lord Sesshomaru 14:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

RfD
Since you didn't list the RfD (for the shortcut "Wp:Afd") on the page, I'm going to undo that listing and return it to its redirect status. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Go to WP:RFD, press CTRL+F on your keyboard and type "Wp:afd". Very simple.  Mel sa  ran  10:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I didn't realise you'd bundled it with another RfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, no probs. I thought it'd be a little confusing when I created two separate RfDs for the same issue (Wp:-shortcuts) as the debate would be split.  Mel sa  ran  11:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's always a tough question, that. I think with RfDs it's possibly more confusing (at least for me, since I'm not normally over in that direction) because the template doesn't point to the actual debate, just to the master list of RfDs. At least if you nominate two or more articles for deletion, the template should direct anyone who happens along to the debate on both. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

AWB + StubSensor
goodness? ==

Hi, I saw you left a comment on the stubsensor page about trying to use AWB with the cleanup project. How did that go? Did AWB make it easier? Is there anything AWB was particularly good at? Is there something the project could do to make it work better with the AWB? Any information you could provide would be appreciated. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks! Triddle 04:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, AWB has this nifty feature which proposes the removal of a stub tag when the article is longer than X words. Nearly all the articles in the StubSensor lists were long enough for AWB to remove the stub tags, and basically you don't have to do anything. It loads the page, clicks "preview", you click save (or ignore), and it loads the next page. It worked pretty well for me :-).  Mel sa  ran  04:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the information. Take care. Triddle 06:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ouch.
Wow, I apologize for misinforming you on my talk page and prompting you to nominate Wp:afd and Wp:an/i in a 7 August 2007 RfD. It's obvious at this point there is consensus to keep these unnecessary self references in the main namespace, and by extension I think it's fair to say that avoiding self-references is less important to editors than shortcuts which aren't helping searches and comprise much less than a percent of total incoming links to their target. It's irritating that most of the comments there have been made in ignorance to the way the search function works, and it is very frustrating when comments border needlessly on hostility. I've come to regret the comments I've made, which have sparked little constructive discussion and left me pretty sour on the whole thing. I would have suggested that the result of that RfD discussion would be a good measure of what the community opinion really was about lower-case project shortcuts in general, but it seems the majority of the traffic RfDs attract are from people using the shortcuts who take only enough time to pile-on vote and neglect to educate themselves on the matter first.  Big Nate 37 (T) 19:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. It's quite sad that most of the keep !voters there don't even look at the arguments. They just say "keep, I use it, stop wasting my time". They fail to see that those redirects make no sense, thanks to the search function in MediaWiki. I'd hope that the closing administrator considers the strength of the arguments rather than the number of !voters, but I have little faith in that. And there's no need to apologise; the fact that some people are ignorant doesn't mean that you're not correct :-). I'll put in my two pennies/cents there as well.  Mel sa  ran  20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I replied to nearly every keep !vote on that page. Proof by assertion isn't the way to win an RfD.  Mel sa  ran  10:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: AFC troll
Thanks for the tip, that's a useful template. I use Henrik's afc-helper script, it'd be cool if you could get your template added to it. Precious Roy 02:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That looks like a nice script! Thanks! I'll link it from the Reviewing page, so more people can use it. Will post a message on Henrik's talk page.  Mel sa  ran  10:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

IIHCR
As you suggested, we will be using different accounts for each one of us. Some of us (including me who write this ) already possess own personal accounts. Thank you for your advise.IIHCR 12:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A very good idea, this reduces confusion and you will be given proper credit for your edits. :-)  Mel sa  ran  12:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

please let me clarify your misconception
read my message once again. i want to just that can i write such a summarized article. thanks+ sorry to be so brutal. Sushant gupta 13:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What, do you want others to confirm that? That's what Peer review is for, not the help desk.  Mel sa  ran  13:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * i was in a bit hurry. instead of WP:PR i directly nominated the page for FAC. there somebody pin pointed this issue. now you are trying to be brutal. thanks, Sushant gupta 13:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to be "brutal", I'm just being frank. You shouldn't use the help desk for such ends. Just ask for a peer review :-)  Mel sa  ran  13:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * fine i am sorry mate.



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. Sushant gupta 13:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks for the suggestion. Sushant gupta 13:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My Editor Review
Thanks for the review :-) Happy editing! -- Boricua  e  ddie  15:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)



Eddie has given you a squid! Squids somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! -- Boricua  e  ddie  15:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

AFC tool
That javascript script seems to work fine for you, but every time I use it, I get this. How to fix that?  Mel sa  ran  16:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's your browser? I'm using Safari, and it seems to work fine most of the time (occasionally, weird code pops up on the page, but only rarely). Maybe Henrik can help. Good luck. Precious Roy 18:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm using Firefox. I'll ask him which browsers are supported.  Mel sa  ran  18:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's ok.
Dude, no worries. It was a simple mistake. Besides, I have seen very many dumber mistakes than that, so it's not a big deal. TheBlazikenMaster 21:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you :)  Mel sa  ran  21:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The lowercase an/i debate
You are very fast to correct folks who misunderstand the use of lower case in the search box, but you have yet to directly address the important issues of the fact that lower case useage in the address bar isn't corrected, and lower case in existing edit summary links will also be broken. Please address these issues in the discussion. Failure to do so makes it appear that you are pushing a particular POV rather than unbiasedly addressing the technical merits of the situation. Could it be that there isn't a solution to these two problems, and thus there actually is good reason to keep these redirects? Also, generally XfD discussions are intended to measure the X against policy and guidelines...the fact that they "show up in mainspace searches and are unnecessary", as you said, is not a valid delete reason. Now I tried to be fair in my evaluation of the issue and even changed my !vote when asked to reconsider...and now I'm asking you to either come up with a valid response to the objections, else reconsider your position yourself.  AK Radecki Speaketh  13:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not "pushing a particular POV" in an RfD, this isn't an article, so I am permitted to have whatever POV I like and to try to convince others :-). Still, the address bar thing looks like a valid concern to me, so I will try to respond to that in the debate. For the edit summary thing, well, I don't really think that they are used really often in edit summaries, are they? Is there any automated tool that links to these shortcuts in lower case?  Mel sa  ran  13:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, I don't know, I'm not the one who raised the concern. My point was that the concern wasn't being addressed. But I thank you as I now see that you are addressing the concerns.  AK Radecki Speaketh  15:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that Jonathunder raised that concern. Thanks for your message here, I probably overlooked it :-).  Mel sa  ran  15:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Batman
I placed a few "helpful" hats at Batman and was hoping if you could take a gander at them. To me, they're all acceptable, but then again, another person's opinion suffices. Lord Sesshomaru 00:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And a thought, maybe another good dab would be: "The Batman" redirects here. For the animated series, see The Batman (TV series).

Lord Sesshomaru 01:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That one is fine :-). And "The Batman" redirects here. For the animated series, see The Batman (TV series). would be an appropriate hatnote as well, you can create it with .  Mel sa  ran  18:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you look at the disambiguation at B.A.T.M.A.N. too? Thanks also for helping out. Lord Sesshomaru 19:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed that one as unnecessary (see my edit summary). Cheers!  Mel sa  ran  19:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What do the noincludes do for a certain template, as seen here which I removed? Thought they were there for the sake of it, but they're also on the Tenacious D article, click edit at the top. Lord Sesshomaru 19:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, noincludes make sure that when you transclude the page, the part inbetween noincludes isn't shown. This can be handy for adding a description to a template page etc, so that it shows up when you view the template page directly, but it doesn't show up when you transclude the template on an article. As articles themselves can't be transcluded, the noinclude tags don't do anything on them. You can safely remove the tags, but there's no real need to either. I guess that noinclude is used with a protection tag because templates etc can also be protected, and the protection tag shouldn't show up when transcluding the template.  Mel sa  ran  19:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, I figured as much. If it's useless, I'll just take it off any page I see it in. Lord Sesshomaru 20:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This is brief, the second hatnote at Saint Seiya is questionable. Which are truly needed there? Lord Sesshomaru 23:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed.  Mel sa  ran  01:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with you, WP:U states that E-mail addresses or web page addresses are generally considered likely to be promotional. A non-existing web address can't be promotional, therefore it is allowed. I'm not gonna remove it again, because I don't like to edit war in noticeboards, but I think I'm right there. We are trigger-happy enough already. -- lucasbfr talk 14:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I removed this username again because it isn't a violation of policy; the policy states that all removals must be based on one of the (5) general criteria. Promotional usernames are a general case, but the example of web addresses says they are only likely to be promotional. A non-existent address is clearly not promotional, so the general case does not apply. SamBC(talk) 14:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it's probably not promotional, but still, web addresses are not allowed at all, to avoid confusion, right? I'm not entirely sure on this, so I'll ask on WP:RFCN. Let's see what the consensus there is.  Mel sa  ran  14:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, it could never be a web address, as .uh is a non-existent TLD. WP:U says "Usernames should not be considered inappropriate unless one of the 5 general reasons applies", with one general reason being "Promotional usernames that attempt to promote a group or company on Wikipedia", and one example being "web page addresses are generally considered likely to be promotional" (emphasis added). This is why one of the bots does a check on the domain to see if it gives a valid HTTP response, or even exists. SamBC(talk) 14:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm okay, you're right, it is not "blatantly inappropriate". Feel free to share your thoughts here :-)  Mel sa  ran  14:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

MUSTARD
Please don't change what you haven't debated. Please discuss at the appropriate talk page. And please don't start following me like the violetriga person. It's annoying and rude. Bouncehoper 21:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not following you, neither is violet/riga. Stop accusing other people of "stalking". I haven't yet heard an argument for preferring a jargon term over a common word.  Mel sa  ran  21:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * then why did you follow me to sophomore, 2Gether: Again, and 'N Sync? All recent edits, that you felt necessary to comment on. You both have followed me and reverted my edits before to fit the "sophomore isn't a word" theory. please stop, and discuss on the appropriate pages; because it sure feels like stalking. Plus, it's really annoying to come to a sound and good conclusion and have people decide they want to stir things up again.
 * Bouncehoper 21:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why I "followed" you? Hmm. Maybe because you keep on replacing common English words with pointless jargon words, without a compelling argument?  Mel sa  ran  21:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

sigh. so you do at least admit it. please see the arguments on the MUSTARD talk page--this comment here had nothing to do with "sophomore" at all, merely that you were randomly hopping onto pages and changing things. again, we came to a consensus, and you don't seem to see that. and I really don't need your attitude, thank you. Bouncehoper 23:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

COFS
Hi. Please COFS. The correct abbreviation is CofS (note caps) and I changed that to include the church. We do not need a special entry with non-standard caps because one wikipedia editor did that in his username. Thanks. --Justanother 22:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? Redirects are cheap, and while this one is uncommon, it makes sense. I'll mark it as a redirect from capitalisation. :-)  Mel sa  ran  22:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"Why?" "We do not need a special entry with non-standard caps because one wikipedia editor did that in his username." No biggie. --Justanother 22:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We do not need it, but there's no need to delete it either, because it makes sense at least and it's a redirect from caps, which is quite common, actually. :)  Mel sa  ran  09:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
Hi, many thanks for your vigilance over Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. When you come across these single purpose accounts there is no need to put warnings on their talk page; just send me a message and I'll block them. TerriersFan 22:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks :) I reported one at AIV before I even messaged the account, and it got blocked, I think. The page has been move-protected, by the way.  Mel sa  ran  09:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

'Helpme'
As part of the conditions of my unblocking, I am not allowed to edit at WP:ANI. (See here for more). Auroranorth 00:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that's weird. Isn't there an administrator you could PM or so?  Mel sa  ran  09:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Userpage
Please discuss with me your thoughts about my userpage. Perhaps we can come to some kind of agreement. --Lancastria 14:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

However, under normal circumstances, merely having a userbox that displays an opinion, regardless of whether you disagree with it, is perfectly fine. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC) On the other hand, "I hate vandals and think they should all be blocked" is potentially inflammatory to Wikipedia vandals, but there's not likely to be anything done about it. ;) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a battleground. Divisive and inflammatory userboxes are prohibited and yours says "This user DETESTS war criminal George W. Bush." That is clearly inflammatory.  Mel sa  ran  14:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This, as opposed to a simple "This user opposes ", is a valid example of both an inflammatory userbox and a violation of WP:BLP. I've removed the userbox and left a note for the user.
 * Hmm, okay. In the past, many userboxes that were even less divisive (like "this user is a socialist, believing in peaceful measures to provide basic needs to everyone") were deleted, so I thought that "this user opposed politician XXX" was certainly considered divisive. Has the policy changed?  Mel sa  ran  15:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think I understand where your confusion lies... read WP:GUS. In short, decisive userboxes were moved out of the template namespace and into the user namespace, where there's a lot more leniency towards expressing opinion. Something like User socialist is unacceptable in the template namespace, but it's still alive and kicking at User:Melsaran/UBX/socialist. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I knew about the migration thing, but I had no idea that divisive/inflammatory userboxes were allowed in userspace. Thanks for clarifying that :)  Mel sa  ran  15:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it is an admittedly very fine line. Something like "I don't like Bush"... well, yes, that will rile up stalwart Bush supporters, but it isn't particularly inflamatory, as it's a relatively simple declaration of the user's opinion (though the whole concept of "should we be displaying any opinion on our userpages is a completely different argument, that neither of us will be able to solve any time soon...). Something like "I think Bush supporters should be shot" would be a lot more inflammatory, just as "I think Bush opposers are friggin' morons" would be. The rule of thumb (as I've observed): a declaration about one's self is fine, a declaration about a group is a lot iffier and is generally considered over the line.
 * Unless... the thing said "all wikipedia vandals hate/support George Bush" - or something equally offensive towards non-vandals. OK I believe I may be looking at this too hard and need to get a life :D --Lancastria 17:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

PLM E-group
Hi Melsaran,

I am politely requesting and contesting that the article (PLM E-group) which I have contributed in the wikipedia is notable and relevant to the other wikipedia articles, especially to the article of PLM (Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila) this is a stub article, which is very significant and related to the PLM - Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila. It explains and gives sufficient background related to the PLM alumni and students' interactive community. This article will also be used for other PLM articles. I believe that this article is worthy to be published in relation the PLM articles, I am an alumnus of the PLM, hence I personally know and see the importance of this PLM E-group article. esp to these following articles:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamantasan_ng_Lungsod_ng_Maynila
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ang_Pamantasan
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magwayen
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamantasan_ng_Lungsod_ng_Maynila_ROTC_Unit

I hope you will consider and understand our position. Thanks and God bless us Fabyan17 17:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think that the subject of the page is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia, please provide reliable, third-party sources to verify the notability. Currently, the page does not have a source, and it is about a forum with 1,500 members. This is probably not consistent with out notability guidelines for web content. If you have reliable sources to verify its notability, be sure to include them in the article!  Mel sa  ran  18:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
I'm a wikipedia user who tries to keep football pages up-to-date and trying to keep wikipedia a trustful source... but it's very difficult. I don't know how to protect them against vandalism, people who changes all into their likes... doing all wrong and senseless. Every day I enter, every day it's a mess.

Can you help me to avoid it...? I saw Juventus page is semi-protected... How can pages can be semiprotected against vandalism...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzz-chan (talk • contribs) 01:36, 14 August 2007


 * First, welcome to Wikipedia! If you see that a page is vandalised, then so fix it! Anyone can click the "undo" button next to a revision. That's why we have people who patrol for vandalism all day long, to ensure that every page is kept clean. However, some pages are targeted by many vandals at once, so it gets very hard to manage. That's when we "semi-protect" a page. A semi-protected page can only be edited by logged-in users who have had an account for four days. If you want to edit something on that page but you can't do it yourself, you may add a editprotected tag on the talk page, accompanied with a description of the requested edit. Someone will pass by as soon as possible.  Mel sa  ran  11:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to stir up any issues
Hi Melsaran, I am posting this here not to stir up an bad feelings, but because somebody should have mentioned it to you while it was relevant and the policy is that you should have been notified. I'm also mentioning it because I would want to know. You were brought up at Wikiquette_alerts. The issue is closed, but I feel that you have the right to know. Again, I stress that I am not bringing this to your attention to create bad blood/harsh feelings. I consider the person who brought the issue up to be a wiki-friend.Balloonman 04:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Email
Hi, I have sent you some email. I hope this is ok, and does not cause any inconvenience. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 15:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied.  Mel sa  ran  15:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 21:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by IP to my talk page
What was this about? Bearian 15:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It was a troll spamming accusations that someone was a paedophile on various user talk pages. See this ANI thread.  Mel sa  ran  15:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sage Keffer
Hi,

I thought the international tour would get him in, so I stubbed the article instead of CSD.

Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  16:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, currently the article consists only of the line "Sage Keffer (Born June 17th) - Sage Keffer is a coutry music singer-songwriter. He is based out of Nashville, Tennessee, but is currently touring through out Europe" and external links, that's it. I don't know whether the artist is notable or not, but in its current form, the article doesn't assert notability.  Mel sa  ran  16:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

PROD
Okay, didn't know that. Thanks for lettimg me know, I will try and be more careful in the future. Eran of Arcadia 17:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's no big deal, really. We all have something to learn :)  Mel sa  ran  18:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

PINK Magazine Speedy Deletion
This is a notice to inform you that your proposal to speedily delete the article titled, PINK magazine, has been contested by the author of the page. You may add your input to the Talk page of the article if you wish to do so. ⒺⓋⒾ ⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ ② talk 20:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

WSEG-AM Speedy Deletion
This is a notice to inform you that your proposal to speedily delete the article titled, WSEG-AM, has been contested by the author of the page. You may add your input to the Talk page of the article if you wish to do so. ⒺⓋⒾ ⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ ② talk 20:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

re: 3RR
Thanks for the warning, Melsaran! Actually, one of the edits was mistakenly made twice, since I got a server error and then submitted the Undo for the second time, while someone had already reverted it back. I wish people would use the talk page better, though. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. Hope you don't get blocked, because it was an accident. It's quite sad, actually, how many people prefer revert warring over discussing the matter on the talk page. I filed a protection request.  Mel sa  ran  15:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks&diff=151608002&oldid=151607660
 * Thanks for this one as well; I never realised that changing someone else's header was allowable on a talk page, or I would have done so myself. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)