User talk:PeaceNT/Archive 21

What is the protocol for moving or deleting pages?
Way back when (it seems now) you greeted me on my page when I started my account. This question needs something besides the letter-of-the-law...perhaps something on the lines of social correctness. I've puzzled why there is often controversy about renaming pages. Apparently, some larger process is at work, but I can't quite understand why editors can be so passionate about this. Then, as I looked at a stub that I'm planning to expand, it occurred that there might be a right way and a wrong way to proceed. There is currently an article "X", a stub, with 20 words. A reasonable way to proceed would be to create two new articles "X (movie)" and "X (album)". Since the current article has almost no information, would it be renamed to "X (movie)" or deleted? (I'm not intending to contradict the existing information, but I am planning to completely rewrite it, since it wouldn't be suitable for the introduction to a long article.) I have the intimation that the stub article's creator might (who knows?) feel a certain "pride of place" at having created the stub. The stub hasn't been modified for almost a year, since it was created. Any thoughts? Guidance? Thanks, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comprehensive and quick answer! (which you left on my talk page). I was using "Article X" as a placeholder, because the situation is a little more complicated than the above description presents it. But the important things were the questions you answered. Your answers fall right in line with what's practical...that the article's original creator -- even a stub creator -- should "get credit" and "follow" the article when it's renamed.


 * In a related situation, I decided not to modify an article at all. Awhile ago (answering your question to me about why I'd considered the option of deleting the article entirely), I came across a stub article on a subject I knew. The editor (who, on investigation, took great pride in the number of articles they have created) had gone to the official web site, paraphrased a couple sentences to create the stub, and left. But even those two sentences were to a degree incorrect. In that situation, in reworking the article, there was little alternative but to erase the existing text. I knew from reading their user Discussion page that they were likely to be defensive, even hostile, about changes to their work. At that point, I felt the editor had done something unfair. But my decision was to let the article sail on, untouched. The least amount of confrontation, but also, the least value to Wiki readers.


 * Now that I've been with Wiki awhile, I have three or four articles that I've been working on for some time, but which aren't to the state where I'm ready to take the public "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune". The scenario I *really* don't want to be in: The day arrives when an article finally ready for posting, only for me to discover another brief article has already been added. It's not a matter of "credit" to me, it's just that one of the nice things is occasionally not having to consider every nuance of existing material before making changes of my own.


 * I guess I thought if I was working on a "hot topic", the thing to do would be to add an article in skeleton format, then return to finish it. There does seem to be something of a Wiki predisposition that encourages editors to publish work that isn't polished. Which brings up my other question: At what point are articles likely to receive the most editorial attention? It seems that the "Random Article" function in the Navigation menu brings up articles that have been recently altered. Even clicking a few hundred times, I notice that some of the same, recent articles pop up. There are apparently various types of Wiki changes that alert other editors it might be worthwhile reviewing an article? Regards and thanks, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 05:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2008 Newsletter
The July 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some more discussion is called for
I would appreciate you not contributing to the edit-warring that has plagued this issue of the Longbottom/Lovegood articles merging. There is a discussion currently ongoing in the HO wikiproject. Perhaps the irony of your actions is lost upon you, but your undoing the merge doesn't appear to have consensus. I would invite you to continue to discuss the matter without undoing the merge. You've boldly made an edit, they have been reverted. Now, let's discuss the matter until you find a consensus for undoing the merge. I've suggested an RfC to weigh in on the appropriateness of the merge. Maybe you'd care to discuss the merits of that? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  10:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of copyvios
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you're not supposed to use the default edit summary when deleting copyvios as it can leave copyvio text in the deletion log (as here ) ? Exxolon (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome
Dear PeaceNT,

Thank you for your welcome. I am still learning the ropes of Wikipedia, but I hope to become a good Wikipedian soon.

Yours sincerely,

Aiden P. Gregg Aidengregg (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for fulfilling my request for speedy deletion. Silverwolf85 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Carr Site
A. The name was changed to its most readable order per the WP:NRHP style guide

B. There are several points here. look at Smith, John, Site or John Smith Site? What is a normal search for you?
 * 1.If you were to look up information about a site, out of the blue - you just decided to look it up, would
 * 2. However, if you do use last name first, I left the redirect.
 * 3. BTW The reference noted is an unofficial site - it is not a government site
 * 4. That said, the National Register of Historic Places does indeed invert names (see )
 * 5. The inversion is internal only - are you going to tell me that this inversion is the official name? That the Elihu Root House is not the name because the NRHP calls it "Root, Elihu, House" ? (check all the references here). Is Hamilton College wrong for calling it the "Elihu Root House" instead of "Root, Elihu, House" as the NRHP does?
 * 6 That is why I rename as I find them. Most of the times, they're redlinks.

C. This time it went bad. I went about the renaming badly and caused a bot to go on the prowl - for that I'm sorry.

D. I hope this explanantion helps.

Einbierbitte (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Live and learn. There are still intricacies to Wikipedia that I haven't learned yet. Einbierbitte (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Kali Littlefield
Thanks for closing up that AfD. If I had noticed that it was stale sooner, I wouldn't have participated and closed it myself. But since I did, I wasn't comfortable closing it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Leathermouth
You recently closed the deletion debate for Leathermouth and deleted the article. I would like you to reconsider and undo the deletion because the article met the criteria for notability at Notability (music): "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". Among the band's members were Frank Iero of My Chemical Romance and James Dewees, who plays or played in multiple notable bands. Furthermore the page can not be redirected because there are two notable personalities. – Zntrip 03:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou
Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi PeaceNT! My thanks for helping out with the problem of Spanish language in Starting vortex.  Your prompt and effective response is appreciated.  Cheers!  Dolphin51 (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Doru Bratu
I noticed you removed the prod with the rationale "appear to be playing for FC Rapid Bucureşti". If you look at his stats, he hasn't actually ever played for them. Could you reinstate? Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  13:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, I would say it was very uncontroversial - he clearly fails a key guideline, and the article had already been deleted once for the same reason. I've AfD'd this one, but please think twice before deprodding footballer articles again - as it's such a popular sport we get tonnes of fancruft, equating to tens of AfDs a week, which are mostly pointless and tiring. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  13:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Twilight characters
The reasoning is that they should be included in the list, and not just in the small paragraph on the top, so the list is complete. I haven't been able to complete editing the Central Characters section so it looks better (I do think it's pretty messy right now), but it will look something like the Major Character section in Characters of Final Fantasy VII. I was also a little iffy on the mention of them having articles; saying outright that they have articles. I wasn't sure if it was against any policy in particular, though. Also, most of the pages, save for Bella, Edward, and possibly Jacob, will eventually be merged (probably after the BD hype cools down). They have no third-party sources or reception, and almost everything is in-universe. They are never mentioned in reviews and Meyer doesn't reveal any creation notes about them, so there is no way they could ever become a GA. I kept them in a Major Character section because it helps when merging, as I would already have an already developed section and all that I have to do is merge the non-repetitive information. I'll work on cleaning it up today so it doesn't appear so messy. Hope this helps, WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I probably won't end up merging Jacob:) I've worked on Bella's article, so that one at least has some reception and concept/creation notes. The real problem comes up when there aren't any interviews that mention him and such. Edward will probably make it because we have at least have something on him. I'm going to end up merging the other Cullen's pages, but will leave Bella, Edward, and Jacob; hopefully someone can help with the latter. All that I ask is to let me finish up with those merges and fix up that section of the list. Once I'm done, we can see where to go from there (what looks best). Is that fine? WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I've tagged most of the character articles (except Bella, Edward, and Jacob) for merges. Now it's just waiting for replies, though I'm pretty sure I'll mostly just get people complaining about how they are prominent. Thanks again, WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I'm actually quite surprisedxD Well, I still have a few more days to go. I'm counting on at least one person going against it, though it'd be great if no one did. Thank you for your support, WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Kay Chorao
Hi. I nominated our article Kay Chorao for DYK, so it would be on the front page of Wikipedia for a few hours. However, because I was the one who nominated it, it is being discriminated against. Click HERE] for the discussion, and if you wish to fix the refs. If you do not want to fool with them, I can't blame you.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace  06:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi PeaceNT. Were you aware that it was you who first welcomed me? And here it is a long time later, and I'm thanking you for commenting in my recent RfA. So thanks—for both—very much! Best wishes, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 16:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

RFPP
When you respond to an entry at WP:RFPP, use  beginning a line somewhere in the response. Otherwise the bot won't age the request nor move it off the page. See Requests for page protection/Administrator instructions which is a link at the top right of RFPP. One thing it isn't clear about is that one or more colons must precede the response. Thanks for the good work. —EncMstr (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

i notice you have deleted [Karly Greene]. can i ask why? did i not reference correctly. Can you can fix it for me? All the other characters from Wilderness have their own page and I thought Karly should have one too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonok (talk • contribs) 19:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Three Dots Tattoo
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Three Dots Tattoo. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. meco (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I may have been a little rash in bringing this to a review. I should perhaps have requested that you take a second look at your decision. __meco (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Redspotgames
I noticed that you closed this AfD after I had relisted it, and just wanted to ask why (as I'm relatively new to closing these). My reason for relisting it was that the only comment was silly per WP:JNN and WP:JUSTAPOLICY, being as it consisted only of "per WP:NOTE". I'm not upset and wanting to march off to deletion review, but I am curious. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections
Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter
The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

surprise?


Zeibura 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. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. I'm back, kinda. Under a different username. Hope you're okay :) - file lake  shoe  23:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
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 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)