User talk:ReyBrujo/Archive 14

Thank you
Thank you for |your message. If you manage to create the dump, it will be very good. There are many people who are interested in interwikis there.--FocalPoint (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Asia/SOap
Picked up & listed now on Meta. I hadn't realised how extensive (& sneaky) it was, apologies & thanks for the work. My gut feeling (while assuming loads of GF) is it will return in some form but I guess you know & will watch - let me know if I can help - cheers -- Herby talk thyme 08:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the Notabilty Templates
I note that you have removed the notability template from the articles Goldmoon, Riverwind, and Sturm Brightblade with the comment "Notability asserted in the article itself". As these articles have no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability, can you provide evidence that these subjects are notable? If not, I am requesting that the template be restored. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there! Regarding the articles Goldmoon, Riverwind and Sturm Brightblade, here is my rationale:
 * The Dragonlance is a recognized trademark with over 150 published novels since 1984. Most of their books are tagged as "New York Times Best-Selling" titles.
 * The article about Goldmoon, for example, determines that she has been a recurring character for over 16 years in a notable saga, names in a correct out-of-universe perspective the plot including references to the books in which she appeared, opinions about authors (taken from annotated books that are considered reliable sources since the opinions of the authors are out-of-universe instead of in-universe), a controversy section which includes opinions from a staff member of the publisher and an author herself, and a section about the upcoming movie, where she will be personified by Lucy Lawless. It is my belief that cultural impact can be asserted by the fact that she has been a recurring character of a best-selling series which has sold at least 20 million copies and spawned 75 role playing modules and six games, and a mass-market movie with notable actors and produced by Paramount Pictures.
 * Similar articles like Aragorn only use books and annotations made by the authors, yet nobody will ever object him from being iconic. Goldmoon is featured as main character in the novel The Silver Stair (1999). Riverwind is the main character in two novels, Spirit of the Wind and Riverwind the Plainsman, while Sturm is the leading character in The Oath and the Measure.
 * Then, I question the guideline legality, because this modification was done by a single user according to this small section, where consensus is not demonstrated. Contrary to related guidelines like Manual of Style (writing about fiction), there has not been any attempt to seek consensus here, it was just imposed according to the perception of a single user.
 * Finally, and considering what I said (this can be applied to every of these character: recurring character for over a decade in a +20m copies sold series, being personified by a renowned actress in an upcoming animation movie, being main character in at least a novel, and the reliable out-of-universe references used in the article and by using common sense, I think it is proved these characters are notable on their own.


 * Note that I don't object some other tags in Dragonlance characters, because they are lacking references, but polishing those articles are enough to make them "worthy". Cheers! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Whilst I agree with you that there is an abundance of citations in these articles, these are all primary sources. Your opinion is insufficient to demonstrate notabiltiy. Have a look at WP:V, particularly the section "Reliable sources", which states:
 * "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources"
 * As the articles do not have reliable secondary sources, I must ask once more the Notability templates to be restored to the articles Goldmoon, Riverwind, and Sturm Brightblade until such time that reliable secondary sources are found.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Even though you cannot understand, the article are referenced correctly. According to Secondary information|the manual of style, The term secondary information describes information external to the fictional universe, and is usually taken from secondary sources about the fictional world, or from primary and secondary sources about the author and the circumstances of creation. Annotated books are primary sources, yes, but with comments from the authors about the circumstances of creation, which fits the definition. And even then, a guideline cannot overwrite policy, and when conflicting the policy is more important than the guideline. According to Verifiability: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications., a fact that is true for the authors and the publisher Wizard of the Coast. Finally, according to the same policy, the restriction is true only for biographies of living persons.
 * Obviously you have a different interpretation of the guideline, so I suggest you to open a request for comments for the article, to use it as a precedent for future tags. I cannot, in good faith, put a tag to an article when I think it does not deserve it. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if you are talking rubbish, do not understand WP guidelines WP:FICT or WP:RS, or are pushing your POV. In any case, I have requested third party review of the notability issues I have raised on these articles as follows:
 * Good article reassessment/Goldmoon/1
 * Good article reassessment/Riverwind/1
 * Sturm Brightblade: Dispute about Reliable Secondary Sources
 * Please feel free to contribute to these discussions. I am still requesting that you restore the notabilty templates you restored from these articles. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, I can't restore these tags when I don't think they are suitable. That would be like blocking someone I don't think need to be blocked, or protecting an article I don't think needs to be protected. Normally, when someone edits and someone else remove the edits, the original version is kept until discussion is ended. In any case, I think you should go to a Wikipedia-wide request for neutral opinions, and those (if any) who are working with you will the article must be tagged, while those who are against you will say it should not. I have passed many of these discussions, and the only way to solve them is through consensus via community addressing (contrary to addressing them locally in either the guideline page or the article page). I have always accepted consensus, even when against it, and if it is demonstrated, I will be the first one to edit the article. But until then, I will stand in my position. Cheers!-- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If there are no reliable secondary sources, then the notability template is relevant to this article and should be restored. I am disputing the concensus as it must now be apparent to you that I don't agree with your POV.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So, basically I am a bad faithed editor just because I don't agree with your statements? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is just that I have added the template in good faith (for reasons I have explained) and brought to your attention that there are no secondary sources for this article, and it seems to me that you are, for some reason, intent on reverting my edits whilst at the same time ignoring the guidelines. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Better yet have a look at Requests_for_comment/Gavin.collins. Gavin has demonstrated a behavior pattern of disruptive editing on RPG-related pages and then bullying other editors to get them to conform to his narrow view point. I agree that you both have every right to add or remove tags as you see fit. I just happen to agree with ReyBrujo that the tags removed do not belong here. Web Warlock (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not ignoring the guidelines, the fact that I am discussing here means I acknowledge them. I am not disrupting, since I have left the notability tags in all the other Dragonlance articles where notability is not asserted even though, personally, I think most are notable on their own. I haven't stated I would continue to remove the tags. I stated that the common procedure is to edit the page, and if someone else reverts it, you should discuss instead of edit warring. That I stand firmly against something doesn't mean I will edit war someone. However, as you may have noticed, your tags were removed from many articles by other users. I cannot vouch that they will stop removing them. That is why I suggested a Wikipedia-wide discussion, because by adding and removing tags we won't
 * Finally, you are asking me to do something I don't think is correct. It is like me telling you to warn a user who made a typo while editing an article, to give you an idea. I am here for ideals that go beyond notability, neutral point of view, references and such. I am here because I think freedom is necessary. Even if the notability guidelines change and all Dragonlance topics are deleted, or if on the contrary all notability guidelines are abolished and Wikipedia becomes accepting articles about every robot that died in the Star Wars, I will stay here. Advertisement won't make me leave, disabling ips from editing won't make me leave (even though I will be firmly against that idea just like I am against your argument in our discussion), even making users pay to edit won't make me leave, as long as the content is still free as in freedom. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you truely believe in freedom, replace the template. Once other editors know there is an issue, they will be free to come, and they will bring secondary sources; the notability template is just a marker to show the way. Even Web Warlock has offered to provide secondary sources; its already working. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

ip aren't static, just for your curiosity
Hi man, you left a message at the talk page of the ip, 84.108.245.64. just wanted to notify you that the errors you corrected were made in 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=84.108.245.64) tl;dr: ip aren't static, your message didn't reached it's destination. cheers, --84.108.245.64 (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi there! How goes? My ISP changes my ip every 22 hours, so I know what a dynamic ip is :-) Note that the error in 2006 I corrected it shortly after it was done (according to the diff, just 2 minutes ago). I left the warning note as soon as I corrected it (the spam was introduced at 21:58, I reverted at 22:00 and warned the user seconds later at 22:00). If you got the message, it obviously didn't reach the intended target. However, I acted the way we must: revert and warn the user as soon as possible. It is not as if the error was done in 2006 and I reverted in 2008 :-)
 * We have a bot who runs through ip talk pages and deletes them when it passed enough time (to prevent these types of mistakes with dynamic ips), however it was suspended. Messages should expire after a determined time, but that has not been implemented.
 * Finally, I usually reply in both my talk page and the ip talk page, in case the user is using a dynamic one. I have faith that I will catch the user while he is still browsing, but that is not always possible. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Flint Fireforge
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Flint Fireforge, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Flint Fireforge. Deb (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Laurana Kanan
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Laurana Kanan, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Laurana Kanan. Deb (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey, this is Ginger1256. Thanks for not biting my head off about the red link stuff, When I did that before, I got "yelled at", and someone said I was vandalizing and banned me! All I did was remove the stuff around things that don't link to anything, since even though according to some people the red links served a purpose, to me they didn't. Anyways, thanks for taking the time to explain, and not doing what other people did on this site. Also, the reason I'm under this username is because when I logged into the internet and edited from Ginger1256, my IP was linked to someone that vandalized. My IP changes everytime I log in, due to me being on a laptop. Thanks for not being a jerk lol Dbreton4612 (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your help. Cheers. Earth bending  master  17:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 

Earth bending  master  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.

meatball
This may be getting off-topic for AN at this point.. Meatball is not Wikipedia. There are good reasons for us to not import their customs here. Meatball was derived from the old days- days when you could assume the vast majority of contributors were constructive. These days, Wikipedia is dominated by a very different majority of contributors. Here we've got tons of emotional teenagers, kooks, POV-pushers, spammers- all manner of unhelpful folks. I think our practices here would best be aimed at drama reduction. Friday (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Every little thing.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Every little thing.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not remember...
I find it quite odd how a page can be FA in one language, but be in absolute horrible condition in another. I believe it is preferred for sources of a wiki article to be in the same language as the article itself, but other than that, is there any reason why Wikipedia does not have a single article (at least to my knowledge) that is featured across multiple languages?  « ₣M₣ »  01:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but say if a FA from one language is translated and copied to a B-article in a different language, can this effect the status of that B-article? You mentioned other languages may have "different standards", but I would like to know if my aforementioned question is possible any of the other languages.  « ₣M₣ »  01:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, their criteria is what make them unique instead of just being a copy off another language. Assuming the criteria of the target language is met when translating an article, do you/will you take part in any of this? I am looking for such a person who also shares some interest in VG articles.  « ₣M₣ »  23:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(←) I mean "Helping translate featured articles from English to another language" and since your a admin, can you deleted the older versions of Image:SSBB Cover.jpg? It was a weird image to work with.  « ₣M₣ »  01:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
I noticed that you are an admin. I was wondering if it would be possible for myself to be granted rollback privileges. I have been undoing vandalism on several articles and recently it took more effort than it should have to undo repeated vandalism on an article about The Godfather: The Game. I was hoping that you could help make things a little easier for me. --Xander756 (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the rollback page itself, it says that to apply for rollback you can simply approach an administrator directly quoted "You may approach an administrator and request this permission," --Xander756 (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

My RFB
Hey, just a quick note to thank you for dropping by at my RFB. While I'm not quite up to a year at admin, I understand your reservations and hope that, should my application be successful, I can prove that despite being two months short of my RFA anniversary, I can still meet your expectations! Thanks for your best wishes and, in return, all the best to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand entirely! All the very best.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you, ReyBrujo, for the comment on my RfB. I hope that, next time, I will be a more suitable candidate in your view. Best wishes to you. Acalamari 22:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

sockpuppetry
Hello, user:MisterWiki has accused me of being a sockpuppet of you. (see User talk:132.205.44.5). 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, cool! :-D This is a first, thanks for telling me :-D -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)