User talk:Pyrospirit/Archive 3

Substitution
My bad, I'm a frequent editor of FFXIclopedia and that's not part of our wiki software. Just trying to pass some time while the wiki is down. I'll remember this for future use of adding templates to talk pages. Thanks :) --Charitwo 00:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletions
Thank you. I am not sure if the Entrepreneurial Society or David Audretsch should be deleted. David Audretsch is a renowned economist and there is no information about him on wikipedia.

Cheers JPawan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JPawan (talk • contribs).


 * Ok, if he's notable then it's fine to write an article on him. But the article you created clearly didn't follow a neutral point of view and seems to purely be advertising for the book. Wikipedia is not advertising, which is why I tagged the articles for speedy deletion. Pyro  spirit  Shiny! 15:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is the first time I ever tried to put something in Wikipedia and I agree that the Entrepreneurial Society needs to be changed and made neutral. But why the article on "David Audretsch"? If there is something that is not neutral, can I change and have the "speedy deletion" tag removed from it?JPawan 18:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Many Thanks


 * Sure, just tag the article with hangon and improve it, then it won't be deleted. Don't forget to explain you're working on improving it on the talk page, just so an admin doesn't miss the notice. Pyro  spirit  Shiny! 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

in previously memtioned matter of bios
without making a big deal about it or unduly upsetting a very fine and well-meaning editor by making any direct comments that might lead the editor to think that anyone had at all questioned their particular methodology we would be grateful if an opinion could be given on how to most properly approach an "activist" type bio

for instance: how many afternoon discussion groups led, or "chalk-talks" given should actually be listed; should the underlying notability of the groups referenced be taken into account; and things like that

perhaps a comparison could be done with another activist who is a "know quantity", for instance the internationally know and unimpeachably notable Robyn Ochs and the more local Sheela Lambert would be a useful idea —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.187.203 (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Look, if an article isn't written from a neutral point of view, or if it doesn't cite reliable sources, someone will fix it. If the person isn't notable, the page will be marked for deletion. You can request that the article be deleted through the articles for deletion process. If you want to remain anonymous in doing so, I recommend you create an account under a psudonym. Anyway, if you just link to the article I'll take a look at it an see what I can do to help. Pyro  spirit  Shiny! 12:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * sorry to dither and be so unclear but people are worried about being cut out on chances of being published and of course their reputations, its this article Sheela Lambert, shouldn't be deleted but she's not the Queen of England either you know —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.215.27.197 (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Excuse me, but a quick DNS check of IP info reveals that 209.244.187.203 is located in Bronx, New York, while 63.215.27.197 is located in Miami, Florida. This leads me to believe that these are two different people. Could you explain this? How many people am I talking to, anyway? Pyro  spirit  Shiny! 16:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about a DNS check of IP info but there is a worried group of about 5 here but only 2 have done the typing. One the original note and now me.  But no-one here is very good at computers, so we are sorry if we have done something wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.215.27.197 (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Here's where I found the info: 63.215.27.197, 209.244.187.203. Anyway, I took a look at the article Sheela Lambert, and although perhaps a little POV, it doesn't look that bad. I did notice that quite a few edits to the article were made by ; is this the editor you were talking about? You should either discuss it on the article's talk page or on the talk page of the user adding information you believe to be biased. If you wish, you can tag the article with pov to note that the neutrality of the article is disputed. And by the way, not everyone has to be the Queen of England to have an article on Wikipedia. (Read the policy on notability for details.) Pyro  spirit  Shiny! 17:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear miss, we know that padding/inflating a resume is a regrettable but common fact of life in these times. However we were rather startled when the subject of the article, a person all of us were at least marginally acquainted with, began to boast that her importance was such that she rated an article on Wikipedia.

Out of curiosity people began to look up her bio and given what was personally known about various entries, people were, to say the least, "surprised" at what they found. A little more research revealed that what seems to have happened is that her resume was handed to someone who did not know her very well, but is the type of good-hearted person who tend to always think the best of everyone. This person then simply added in the data provided by the subject of the article without casting a critical eye on it.

The article's subject has recently made herself a rather big fish in our little, primarily academic pond. And further she has recently on two subjects proven herself to be nothing if not relentless and vindictive. So any indication she received that someone was not totally on board with her program would result in a witch-hunt that we would rather not experience.

While it would be difficult, not to mention revealing of some people's identities, to go through each and every sentence and point out the difference between an overly positive spin and reality, perhaps these few examples would give you an idea of why we are expressing our concern here: Bi Mental Health Professionals Association is really only a yahoo group with 35 members, Bi Women of All Colors is monthly brunch & chat group group with 78 members not all active, and so it goes. A good, helpful but not overly significant memo becomes a major study, a nice, informative talk given to a hand-full of middle managers becomes a large-scale presentation, attendance with others at various meetings becomes a leadership position, yadda, yadda, yadda. In our opinion this is the pattern at work throughout the entire article. This is all we are saying.


 * First off, "miss"? What gave you the impression that I'm female? Anyway, while I see your concern&mdash;assuming what you say is true&mdash;I've already given you some suggestions as to what you should do. Remember not to go too far and bias the article the other way, though. My best suggestion is to discuss it on the article's talk page. And there's really nothing more I can do to help, because I know next to nothing about this topic. Another point is that there is no reason to be concerned about anonymnity; just create an account and you'll be totally anonymous. Pyro  spirit  Shiny! 22:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Moongarden
Please see talk page. Why flag this for speedy deletion? Did you not read the GEPR ref, http://www.gepr.net/mofram.html ? Started this as a stub, with significant citation (GEPR) showing importance & significance, anticipating more contributions by other WP authors. Gekritzl 01:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The article gives no assertion of notability. If you want to dispute the speedy deletion, I recommend placing hangon below the speedy deletion template and explaining why it's notable on the article's talk page. Pyro  spirit  Shiny! 01:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

re: search script
Yeah, it doesn't really do much &mdash; it was just supposed to be a fix for some problems I had with wikipedia's searchbox, mainly the fact that it shows an annoying search screen on non existent pages. It's not very user friendly &mdash; every code is made in markup inside the search, for example: foo|g will google it, foo|gw will google wikipedia, foo|contribs goes to foo's contribs, foo|edit edit's foo, foo|hist goes to foo's history, etc.. I have no idea why it messes up other scripts, all it changes is the "action" html variable in the search form. GeorgeMoney (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted Reversions
I've already written to you about earlier problems with a revision war. I just wanted to point out that a while ago I added something different to the wiki page that I felt was completely neutral and totally appropriate. You can find the history comparison here. Perhaps if you read this source, you will see that in fact I am correct about this. I would like to submit the user responsible to a special page so something can be done about this guy. The user seems to be revising a lot without warrant. See his talk page for further reference.

A few articles on the users talk page: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steinizethat (talk • contribs).
 * Diplomacy please
 * You remove my link
 * Rim Jim
 * Copro records
 * Denison & Porter


 * If you have a problem with the user's behavior, talk to him on his talk page. If that doesn't solve the problem, try reading the dispute resolution page for advice. Pyro  spirit   Shiny!  19:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, question(RuneScape)
Do you follow Zamorak?  ATROCITY1313     (Contact me)


 * Bit off topic, but anyway... Nope. Guthix ftw! ^^ Pyrospirit 19:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Gielinor (It's me!)
Whilst I appreciate your notification to me, I have absolutely no idea what in the hell you are talking about, because I made absolutely no changes at all in any way to the text of that page, all I did was take some of the words on it and link them to the proper article on the Runescape Wiki for ppl who wish to find out about those things in more detail.......... sooooooooo......... yeah......... but......... whatever floats your boat..... Loismustdie231 04:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We link to the RuneScape Wiki at the bottom of the page, so links to every related page in the RSW really is putting information into the article that's detailed beyond the scope of this encyclopedia. >>' Though looking back on it, my message may have been slightly inaccurate because you didn't directly add info, in which case I apologize for any confusion it caused. You can just ignore it or archive it or whatever, I guess. Pyro  spirit   Shiny!  19:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Zaro Aga
I don't see any reason why you marked Zaro Aga with G1. G1 criteria states the following:

Zaro Aga was one of the longest living guys in the history. Thanks. BillyGee
 * 1) Total nonsense, i.e., text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all. This includes sequences such as "i9da7gy98sdygida%£U%ETDFHc8vda097tt{%£^O&£^IEUyrhgietysbvd}TYu{og;d", in which keys of the keyboard have been pressed with no regard for what is typed.
 * 2) Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever
 * I removed the speedy tag... it isn't patent nonsense and actually has some "sources" http://www.custance.org/old/seed/ch3s.html. It's most definitely a hoax... but it is a hoax that originated outside Wikipedia so AFD/PROD are the way to go here if you feel this should be deleted.--Isotope23 18:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing that, Isotope. I agree that it's clearly a hoax; I meant to click db-hoax, but I must have hit the wrong button with the Twinkle script. I'll just prod it and see what happens. Pyro  spirit   Shiny!  19:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

hey
Sorry about screwing up on the page but I dont want to get banned, and didnt know I was doing things wrong. I was making pages ahead of them then adding the info. So how do I get warnings taken away? Cause some other guy gave me my last warning. (X9draven9x 17:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Don't remove the warnings, because that's generally looked down upon, but instead respond to them on your talk page by explaining what you were doing. I'll remove my own since you were acting in good faith; however, in the future please start an article with at least some content so it's not deleted. If it helps, type it in a text document on your computer first, then create the page when you have at least a rough stub version. If someone else creates the article before you, just work on that one instead of writing the whole page yourself. Reserving titles, however, leads to these sorts of problems. Anyway, you won't get blocked or anything for this as long as you explain what you were doing (preferably on your talk page). Pyro  spirit   Shiny!  19:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks alot man, I didnt mean to keep breaking the rules and didnt know I was when I was doing that. I made another band a wiki before and made the pages without having all the info in them first so they wouldnt be a dead link. But thanks again. (X9draven9x 21:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

Fancruft
By the way, I looked up Wikipedia's policy on fancruft, and found that you are completely wrong in every way. Wikipedia has absolutely no policy against fancruft. That is a common misconception brought about by the people who think there should be a policy against it, or think there is and prefer it that way. Sorry for proving you wrong.....--Loismustdie231 04:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your polite response. Despite Fancruft not actually being a policy, it's supported by strong consensus throughout WikiProject RuneScape. Therefore fancruft, while not technically violating any policies, goes against consensus and for that matter decreases the quality of an article. Articles are meant for the general public, not RuneScape fans who already know how to play the game. Pyro  spirit   Shiny!  22:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps so, but again, I didn't even do any funcraft, I in fact did not edit the article's text, readability, or amount of information contained within at all.... Loismustdie231 23:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Pegasus Airpark
I filled it out as a stub. Is it okay now? --WilliamRoper 22:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as it satisfies notability and the other CSD, yes, it should be fine now. Pyro  spirit   Shiny!  02:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

J&K Right to Information Act
Why did you tag this as spam?--P4k 05:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * After looking at it again, it was a mistake. I must have missed the context of the article or some such; at first glance, I guess I thought it looked like it was advertising of some sort. Sorry for any trouble this caused. Pyrospirit  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 16:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's not a big deal.  I'm sorry for being accusatory; people deliberately stretch the meaning of the CSD criteria a lot and I thought that that was what had happened here.--P4k 16:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)