User talk:NTox/Archive 1

February 2012
Jim1138 (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

List of weapons in counter-strike
Is it possible to keep this page if i rename it to CS weapons tips and write about different ways of using the weapon to the best of advantage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padfoot 3927 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Padfoot. Thanks for wanting to help build the encyclopedia. Its content is lost without folks like you. Regarding List of weapons in counter-strike—my thinking is that your information might find a better home at a specialized gaming website. There are some that you can edit yourself, like StrategyWiki or Wikia Gaming. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we generally don't want to get too detailed. However, since hard-core gamers might be interested in your list, I've tagged the article for transfer to a separate website. Good luck. NTox · talk 08:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ricardo Rossel
Hi Ntox, I just started this article, I will probably need your help. I am translating this from the Spanish wiki, do I have to write somewherethat this a translation? I also need to place the sign "under construction", do you know which is that? I might not finishtonite, so be patient with me =] Thanks. Cefaro--Cefaro (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Cefaro. Not a problem. I added a construction tag for you. I advise checking out the Manual of Style for biographies. The folks who wrote that article know more than I do. Thanks for translating that article. I am sure the readers appreciate it. NTox · talk 03:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks!, that was quick, are you running for Stewart? I'd vote for you =] --Cefaro (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Glad to help. Who is Stewart? I don't think that's me. NTox · talk 03:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Your request for rollback
Hi NTox. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 00:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Welcome
Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Articles for creation! We are a group of editors who work together on the Articles for creation and Files for upload pages.

A few tips that you might find helpful:
 * Please take time to fully read the reviewers' instructions before reviewing submissions.
 * The project's discussion board is the best place to ask for help or advice. You might like to watchlist this page, and you are encouraged to take part in any discussion that comes up.

Once again, welcome to the project. Thanks! NCISfan2  (talk)  23:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Article submissions that need reviewing can be found in Category:Pending AfC submissions and there is also a useful list which is maintained by a bot.
 * You might wish to add AFC status to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. There is also a project userbox. If you haven't done so already, please consider adding your name to the list of participants.
 * Several of our members monitor the IRC channel, and you are welcome to join in to ask Wikipedia-related questions.
 * The IRC channel is used occasionally for internal discussion regarding the Articles for Creation process, and also serves as a recent changes feed, displaying all edits made in the Articles for Creation namespace.
 * The help desk is the place where new editors can ask questions about their submissions. You are welcome to help in answering their questions.

Disambiguation link notification for March 7
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Stephanie Wells (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Vogue and Allure


 * Pamela Love (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Vogue

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder, bot. NTox · talk 10:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: Dominic Scott
Hi NTox,

I added a bunch of verifiable sources, such as one's from Dominic's verified Twitter account and official MySpace. Can you check the page for me? There's now an overload of sources, which are all reliable websites/sources, etc. Thanks so much!--Belieber92 (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, Belieber. Thanks for messaging me. See the AfC page for my thoughts. Don't hesitate to ask for clarifications if you need them. Have a good one. NTox · talk 06:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks so much for responding. I really appreciate your help! I added another reference for the photographer comment, which I think can qualify as verifiable since it's his Flickr page? But I will try to dig up some more references before I resubmit. Thankss so much!!!--Belieber92 (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi NTox,

I'm going to apologize for this long post lol but I posted some reasoning behind some of the comments.

I have updated Dominic Scott with a few more references, however I would have to disagree with the only valid source being #12. Every single source I have posted is viable, such as references 2-6, aka people asking who he is, is not original research. Someone is not going to post a newspaper article asking who he is, obviously. Therefore internet questions can stand in this context. Wikipedia's stance on "Original Research" is that it's not reliable and/or not a published source. The many cites on the page are comments coming from Scott himself via his Twitter page, making them verified sources. Another example would be reference #1 stating that his hometown is Phoenix, Arizona on his MySpace page. That is fesaible in this context.

I have taken out the influence of "James Dean" due to the fact that Riccitello has only stated that he was James Dean for Halloween. There's no reference saying that he actually was influenced by James Dean. It is an assumption, therefore Original Research would take place here.

The reference for "People were intrigued by Dominic's anonymity on MySpace, as well as his controversial series of photos (which were removed by MySpace admins due to gore)." could be original research however I think it is workable due to the MySpace ID number and the obvious gore. If MySpace did delete the images then I think this can stand as a cite as there's nothing really left on the internet about it.

I believe the references are doable for "To this day, Riccitello states that he works in the entertainment industry, but has yet to reveal his actual occupation (although it's said to be a screenwriter)." because he hasn't stated his occupation, so the internet will only include assumptions. I have given good references for his occupation being screenwriter. This again should be feasible.

I have taken out "People speculate that he is in between the ages of 23 to 32." because there is no known information on this.

I have kept in the photographer reference due to the fact of the blog post and Flickr page. This would also verify the speculation of people not knowing what he actually does.

I have left in actor due to the Urban Dictonary references and also the YouTube video with tags such as "snippet".

I have left in the model comment due to the fact of his obvious ModelMayhem account and modeling pictures scattered all over the internet.

The page is just a start. I'm sure more people will update it with more information as the days go on. This is Wikipedia!--Belieber92 (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * NTox,


 * I don't see ANY reliable sources in this article. If you can prove this guy is dead, the article might have about 0.1% chance of being approved.  If he is still alive, nobody I know in AfC would approved it, with out a gun.    :- ) DCS  20:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Belieber—no problem about the long post. I requested second opinions about your submission in light of your disagreements. One is posted above; the other is here. There appears to be some consensus that the submission can not be verified against reliable sources. While you may in fact be right about many of the claims you make about Scott, Wikipedia is not designed to analyze sources. It is only designed to summarize. The WikiAnswers pages, for example, while not the most egregious of unreliable sources, still point the reader to a text that is filled with unsubstantiated supposition about Scott. Other sources cite various Twitter posts, but do not verify broader elements of the man's personality. I would also note that while Twitter is sometimes a feasible source, it is only feasible in a very limited number of circumstances. On the whole, one might even make the argument that we have no way of knowing that it's actually Scott who operates that Twitter account, and that Scott even exists as a real person (see lonelygirl15). I hope this helps---and I encourage you to stay with Wikipedia. Good luck. NTox · talk 21:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Matrix plot summary
You recently edited The Matrix article to condense the plot summary. I've been aware for a long time that the plot summary has always been longer than is desirable on Wikipedia, and I've tried to keep an eye on the page, stopping people adding too much extraneous detail. But I've always thought there are two things which mean this film needs a longer-than-average synopsis. Firstly, the summary needs to frequently specify whether it's referring to the Matrix or real world, which takes up a lot of space. Secondly, Paragraph Two in the film's plot summary has to give a thorough and clear summary of the whole series' setting. (Though maybe it wouldn't be necessary to do so if the setting description on The Matrix (franchise) was improved?)

Anyway, overall after my edits today the section is now 600 words long. It's lost the thorough description of the Construct training sequence (but IMO that's always been pretty optional, and has gone in and out at different times in the article's history) and of Agent Smith's confession to hating the Matrix. -- Nick RTalk 20:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Nick. I expected that you might send me a note. Overall, I should say that I do not believe the old summary was poor—I merely saw a few different ways it might be improved and that happened to blossom into a broader rewrite. Of course, I do not claim that 'my' version is flawless. I think our different perspectives in this case are more (but not completely) a matter of style than anything else. My goal was to follow the spirit of the WP:MOSFILM as much as possible—to write "basic descriptions"—(granted, I think pretty conceptually!)—which is why I removed what I thought was marginal information about the Construct, etc. Upon some reflection, this may have come at the expense of some of the special effects content that I removed (e.g., Neo dodging bullets, flying into the sky, the use of the EMP). Personally, that kind of thing strikes me as less important than the film's philosophy. But this was just my opinion at the time; I may have removed too much. Overall, I'm not sure that this article requires a summary that is too much longer than average, albeit perhaps slightly. The notion of 'flow' is always tricky, too; it's so subjective. That kind of thing I usually like to get a lot of third-party opinions about. In any case, I don't really have big issues with your changes; thanks for reading my contributions! I may go in later and tweak a few things—e.g., right now, I think we would benefit from consolidating / tightening the paragraph structure (some are much longer than others). Have you given any thought to bringing this up to good, A, or featured status? NTox · talk 21:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Milpharm
I would have thought that pharmaceutical companies were generally notable, even smaller ones, no? But I am happy to discus and will go with the majority of course.  Smokey TheCat  15:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Smokey. Without checking the publications, the company might be notable, yes, but such a judgement is more-or-less extraneous to the criteria of the speedy deletion process. Check out CSD-A7. According to that section of policy, articles require an 'indication of importance', not the reality of notability. It is generally believed that writers should make an attempt to substantiate its topic's importance for the sake of separating the article from ones that are clearly inconsequential to the Project. Usually I am conservative in marking articles with this tag, but I was inclined to do so in this case in accordance with the quality of the reference provided and the statement that the company has no website. (I am not aware of a consensus that pharmaceutical companies hold an inherent indication of importance). Of course, I should make clear that this decision was made in the spirit of the encyclopedia; not a sense of haphazard deletionism. Such things are always subjective judgement calls. I hope this helps. NTox · talk 15:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

PAGEANT THE DOCUMENTARY
Hi...not sure you saw the updated submission. For some reason the one you referred to didn't reflect any of the changes I put in.

PAGEANT THE DOCUMENTARY
PAGEANT Header text Co-Director/Producer Ron Davis Co-Director/Producer Stewart Halpern-Fingerhut Cinematography Clay Westervelt Editing By William Haugse/James Cude Release date December 26, 2008 Country United States Language English Contents [hide] 1 SYNOPSIS= 1.1 AWARDS AND NOMINATIONS 1.2 Praise and Criticism 1.3 Footnotes 2 EXTERNAL LINKS [edit] SYNOPSIS= PAGEANT is a 2008 documentary film, directed and produced by Ron Davis and Stewart Halpern. The film explores the behind-the-scenes dramas and realities of the 34th Miss Gay America Contest. Davis and Halpern focused upon how each of the 52 men competing manages to create themselves, without artifice as the pageant forbids any enhancements or surgery. The film’s central theme is the universal desire, regardless of gender to be beautiful, noticed and chosen; and the right to follow one’s dreams. The film went on to garner 10 major film festival awards before airing on the Sundance Channel in 2010. [edit] AWARDS AND NOMINATIONS 1. Winner, Audience Award, Best Documentary Frameline 32, 2. Winner, Audience Award, Best Documentary, Florida Film Festival 3. Official Selection, Slamdance Festival 4. Winner, Best Documentary, Fresno Reel Pride 5. Winner Best Documentary, Outflix Film Festival 6. Winner, Best Documentary, Chicago Image Out festival 7. Winner, Best Documentary, Honolulu Rainbow Festival 8. Winner, Audience Award, Best Feature, Fire Island Film and Video Festival 9. Winner, Jury Award, Best Documentary, Reelings 2008 10. Winner, Audience Award, Best Documentary Rochester ImageOut Festival [edit] Praise and Criticism While some reviewers, such as Martin Tsai[1] from the Village Voice felt that the film only skimmed along the surface insanity saying that “filmmakers Ron Davis and Stewart Halpern-Fingerhut's treatment is only skin-deep, eschewing any exploration of gender politics or psychological effects induced by the ubiquitous ugly-duckling-turned-swan narrative “ other reviewers such as Nathan Lee in the New York Times [2] felt that it was “ not without its charm, and it’s touching, in a goofy sort of way, to see how seriously everyone takes it.” Audience reviews were generally positive and Rotten Tomatoes posted an 85% approval rating. [edit] Footnotes ▪ ="FRAMELINE" group=Bibliography> Peterson, Brendan. "PAGEANT". Pageant. FRAMELINE. ▪ ="CINEMAQUEER" group=Bibliography>Klemm, Michael. "PAGEANT". October Grab Bag: Pageant. CINEMAQUEER. ▪ ="SUNDANCE CHANNEL" group=bibliography>CHANNEL, SUNDANCE. "PAGEANT". REVIEWS. SUNDANCE CHANNEL. Retrieved 18 March 2012. [edit] EXTERNAL LINKS http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pageant/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1152834/

Bonchic (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)BONCHICBonchic (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for review
Hi,

I have cited the references wherever required, and added few more reliable sources to validate the information.

Please review the article, and accept it.

Kunaliam (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for moving the article into the appropriate namespace, I must've mistyped it. Thanks though! Ncboy2010 (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Glad to help. NTox · talk 20:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for review
Hi, NTox. The whole content on page of Persis Solo doesn't tell the truth included information about the squad, coaches and staff, the league, etc. I realized that there was someone who did vandalism on the page. By the last edit, I tried to give the recent squad list and I have cited the references wherever required, and added few more reliable sources to validate the information. Please review the article, and accept it. Thank you. 110.136.148.116 (talk) 1 April 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.96.217.255 (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think your comment got mixed up with a section above this one. Persis Solo is currently live in the encyclopedia, so there is no acceptance process. In any case, as long as you make sure that your content comes from trusted sources, you should be okay. Thanks for replying, and remember to use those edit summaries! NTox · talk 07:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Springvale Airport
This is a disambiguation page so should be an orphan (but should not be labelled as such) and is not a stub. Remember that you are responsible for all your edits, whether you use AWB or not. Thanks. Pam D  18:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. This one must have slipped past me. NTox · talk 18:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, the error with AWB was corrected, so you might want to use the latest snapshot if you are going to do much of this. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Chersonesus Taurica
Hello,

I saw you'd tagged Chersonesos Tuarica as needing to be Wikified. I'd started translating it from the Ukrainian version of the page Національний заповідник «Херсонес Таврійський». I just looked over it again to see which of the Ukrainian links exist as pages in English Wikipedia and found that Ukrainian Wikipedia has separate pages for the ruined Greek city and for the tourist site, and that in English we already have a page for the city.

Do you think it's worth continuing with the translation of the tourist site page and Wikifying it nicely, or would it be better to just merge it in with the city page and leave it at that?

Beth Holmes 1 (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Beth. Thanks for contacting me. If I were to chime in, I'd recommend continuing with the translation as long as there are a decent number of independent sources that cover the tourist site. That way, you'll have enough detail to substantiate the article . NTox · talk 19:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
66.168.247.159 (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks
You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.2.96 (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Lost in Translation
The GA failed. You were talking about expanding it. Do a great job and i will help where needed. RAP 1:36 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, RAP. I'll put my best foot forward and let you know if/when I need assistance. I appreciate it. NTox · talk 01:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)