User talk:Spearmintstem/Archive 3

Mission IMPROVable page
The company is notable because it is the #1 touring improv comedy company in the country (as listed in the article) in terms of # of shows, and recently opened a theater in Los Angeles. In the comedy world, it is EXTREMELY notable. We have greater brand recognition than ImprovOlympic (now IO). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MImonahan (talk • contribs) 19:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but there is no indication of such notability in the article. Please expand it to show why your group is significant, and use the hang on tag on the talk page Thedarxide (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it. Updated it to reflect.  Sorry bout the signature snafu earlier.--MImonahan (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So you decided to delete it anyway? What about pages like ImprovOlympic?  I am having trouble understanding the difference.--MImonahan (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you're mistaken if you think I deleted it Thedarxide (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing of David Thorne page
The references are to the news articles written by the originator of the David Thorne page (the journalist). The 'edits' being made by Scott Mintred are being made to redirect people to his own website (a minor site of little interest with around 6 visitors a day). This is actually a misuse/abuse of wikipedia. Deleting reference links to news stories and replacing them with links to his own page? Come on. This twit should not be tolerated. Simon Dempsey (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Due to the nature of David Thornes website. Listing his place of work is asking for trouble. I work with David and we are not going to have people turn up with baseball bats becasue you feel the information is necessary. I appreciate you know what you are doing but this information is not to be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Dempsey (talk • contribs) 14:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I only deleted orphaned references. If my ref to a site critical of the subject of this BIO is inappropriate, then so is any reference to a site that lauds the subject. This article has no balance, and is being used an advertising vehicle for the subject. This becomes obvious when the subject requests (and receives) removals of accurate information. If Thorne does not want personal information listed in a biography page, then he should personally request removal of said page from Wikipedia.

Sorry for jumping in here, Thedarxide, but I was not vandalizing his page, and I am not a 'twit'. Scott Mintred 16:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott.Mintred (talk • contribs)

Reply
Ah, you weren't logged in and there had been some IP vandalism earlier in the edit history. Sorry if I mixed your edit in with that. BTW: do you have a source covering Allen replacing Mark Sargeant as head chef? DP 76764 (Talk) 18:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, I was just looking it up and was going to add it. =) I think the Mark Sargeant article needs a little cleaning up and will do a little touching up.  Got any good sources on Allen?  Sounds like he could stand to have an article created for him.  DP 76764  (Talk) 18:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Dang, guess Allen hasn't made a name for himself yet. That Harden's article might have some useful info for the Sargeant article though.  Sadly they link to the head chef link on gordonramsay.com and apparently the text has changed, so it no longer supports some of the info in the article.  Same deal on the Sargeant page here.  DP 76764  (Talk) 19:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination)
Since you participated in Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4, which was closed as relist, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). Cunard (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

--92.6.247.91 (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)== I removed the offending link ==

Marinara
What exactly is the point of wikipedia if not to be able to correct wrong information The link on the original post is incorrect in their surmisings and i am simply changing the article to present the correct information I have been doing research on this for a while now and am quite dissapointed not to be able to have the truth kept on the site for more than a couple of hours please write back with something more intelligent than "please stop" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.247.91 (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC) As a chef with more than ten years experience this is something i have run across many times The Base sauce listed here is what we call Napoli or Napolitana. For it to be called Marinara it must contain seafood of some sort. A cursory google search finds many pages re-quoting from each other with out any of them quoting from reputable source (as does the link on the current article) My changes are based on many years of slow research as a chef talking with Italian historians, chefs, and locals. The link(s) I provided both state that Marinara requires seafood both stating historical records as their source(something the current link does not) I fail to see why the current link is given any more authority than the links i provided. i would like to resolve this amicably with your help please show me your evidence What is your expertise on this matter by the way? What exactly is OED? i'm not familiar with this abbreviation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.247.91 (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Help me requests with no question
Hi Thedarxide, regarding this edit, in future cases where a user uses the helpme template without asking a question, please replace it with  , rather than simply removing it. This informs the user how to use the template correctly, and also offers alternative access to help via the IRC channel. Cheers,  AJ Cham  18:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks, I will, I wasn't aware of it. Thedarxide (talk)

Speedy tagging
Please review WP:CSD and be more careful in tagging article for speedy deletion. In this edit you tagged the article for A3, but I don't see how that is "an article that contains no content whatsoever, or consists only of external links, category tags, a "see also" section, a rephrasing of the title, an attempt to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments and/or images." Thank you. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  19:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, by now it has been deleted anyway, but still&mdash;please be sure to tag correctly. Thanks, — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  19:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Now the article's gone, I can't remember what it was... but from memory, it fell under no content. I interpret that to mean that any content wasn't useable, rather than literally *no* content? Thedarxide (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's literally. ;-) The article had a six-article long "see also", but also had two sentences of info:

"ViaLynx is a business and social networking site founded in June 2009 and launched in September 2009 mainly used for career and professional networking. . ViaLynx was founded Charl Rademan and Louis-Junior Tshakoane by two 19 year old entrepreneurs from South Africa., Louis-Junior Tshakoane and Charl Rademan In 2006 Louis-Junior Tshakoane was sponsored a community gymnasium and training equipment by Sir Richard Branson."


 * It's an advertisement and speedy-able in any case, but after seeing some of the results of WP:NEWT, I try to notify people of any incorrect tags I notice. Cheers dude, — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  19:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, in that case it was a copy and paste error, I used a3, not a7. Ta. Thedarxide (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Henry Gould edits
I appreciate your warning notice on my Wikipedia article. Unfortunately I was not fully aware of Wikipedia policies on COI when I made corrections to my entry. The corrections were minor : ie. reference to my current membership in a now-defunct organization; incorrect listings of my publications.

I would like to be able have your COI warning removed. I've checked the "cleanup" pages but it is still not clear to me how this can be accomplished. I suppose I could revert to the prior text, but that would only re-install the original errors. Can you help with this/ Thank you. Hhgould (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're merely adding sourced, factual statements then I've no problem removing the template from the page. Thedarxide (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. The recent edits I made were indeed factual & verifiable (via the publications listed). I do need to study the Wikipedia policies more closely, & will avoid making further changes. With regard to the "notability" warning tag : one source for this might be the extensive interview in Jacket magazine, which is linked in the "External links". This online magazine is quite reputable, important, & of long standing; the interviewer (Kent Johnson) is an established writer & critic, well known in American poetry circles. Please consider removing this warning tag. Thank you again. Hhgould (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

New Page Patrol
Hi there! I noticed you have been active in new page patrolling. I just wanted to pass on a couple tips: Hope that helps! Singularity42 (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A7's standard of a credible claim of importance or significance is a different standard than notable. For example, if the article claims a company has been established for a long time and has been an important contributer, etc, A7 doesn't apply. You would need to go via PROD or AfD.
 * It helps to mark the articles you have tagged as "patrolled" (at the bottom right of the article's page).
 * When adding a warning template on a new user's welcome page, you should also give them a welcome message. This way, we don't come of as biting the newbies. I would suggest Template:firstarticle when adding a CSD warning template.
 * Hi, thanks for these tips, I've got a shift off work so thought I'd do something constructive. Thedarxide (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I tend to patrol the new pages when I have some time to kill... Singularity42 (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Attack pages
Where an article is defamatory like Jensen Franks just now, the thing to do is blank it and then tag it db-atk or db-g10. Blanking it gets the defamatory material out of view (it's still in the history for the admin to check), and that tag gets high-priority admin attention and gives you a suitably fierce warning for the author's talk page. Keep up the good work - New Page Patrol needs all the eyes it can get! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip - but I didn't think I did that one? Edit - maybe I did! I think crossed another editor. Thedarxide (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it was you - if not I apologise! Whoever it was tagged it first as nonsense or A7, I forget, and then changed that to vandalism, edit-conflicting with my db-atk. Well, it doesn't matter, it's gone now, and it's still good advice even if you didn't deserve it! Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jamari Grant
Hello Thedarxide, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Jamari Grant - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

TRM-800
The knobs are not sweepable; it is a switch. and how about the vintage bias; something old gets kept while newer midragne products are listed for deletion. what is the point of deleting ANY such thing when the realtive amount of space it takes up on a server is TINY (compare to videos and such). Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So, you use Photobucket I see. Why ya Wikistalking me? Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20091028203752&contribs=user&target=Thedarxide I see you tag a lot of stuff. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologise for the knob error, however there is no bias, I take each article on it's merit. I tag a lot of pages because I'm a new page patroller, and you happened to have created articles near the same point in time.  I assure you, I am not wiki stalking you, and the accusation makes me quite uncomfortable.  You also need to realise that a username on one site is not necessarily the same person on another. Thedarxide (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * lol that's really not you? With 60 uploads? Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * But really what is the point of deleting some borderline and not quite notable articles; what do they really hurt by existing; their size (Bytes) is miniscule so I don't want to hear that. ESPECIALLY since Wikipeida keeps EVERY past revision of a page. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah; how do you get that automatic message to appear on my talk page when you respond to my entry on your talk page? Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Darxide was a megadrive game in the mid 1990's, you'd be suprised how many people have variations on the name. It comes down to policy, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  The talkback template is what you want. Thedarxide (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Why did you mess it all up?
Okay I go fast so I didn't actually read through all of your changes; why did you jsut cut up the trm-800 article? It says "but it had three sets of selectable." what the fuck is that? Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "three sets of selectables" is because I made a typo and didn't proof read it. Much of what I removed was original research, it wasn't supported by references and was your own interpretation. Thedarxide (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * lol that's why I had hi resolution pictures; a 10,000 mF capacitor; a picture showing it. etc. etc. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

AV301
That really is an interesting unit; please do watch this; it functions with a computer CD-ROM drive. I discovered upon opening after the drive broke. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6oV7RH-r3Y that video came out like shit. Damn. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Godina
Thedarxide! I clamor for the remove of the delition. Three times it happened that was like deleted the articles of the Slovene literatuers and always was remain the articels. Doncseczznánje 13:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * See you |this list. Flag of the Slovene Nation.svg Doncseczznánje 13:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

year in whatever
When there are no entries for a given year, look for them. One way is to enter the year in the search box and search--it will normally give a few relevant deaths or births. Another is to see if there is anything on the french or other version of a page. Then it can either be translated with the help of Google translate, or you can see if there is a link to the English article. I was able to done or the other or both to all the pages you prodded. You could have done the same. Patrolling has two purposes. Not just to weed    out hopelessly bad articles, but to find the fixable ones, and either fix them or tag them for fixing. see WP:BEFORE, there are multiple alternatives to deleting, and they should all be considered. There's  a built in  bias, because deletion is so much easier than fixing. It helps do it carefully to go in small batches.  DGG ( talk ) 14:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

minor edits
Hi there. Cheers for that: Wasn't aware of minor edit - it's cleared up a few ambiguities I'd wondered about. I've consequently resisted the urge to mark this as a minor edit... a_man_alone (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Enterprise Inns
Hi, new to Wiki, wanted to add some stuff to the article about Enterprise, and as far as I can tell (like I said im new lol) You've deleted it? errr...how comes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pubinteresting (talk • contribs) 01:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Got your message. Firstly, This business is all about its tenants, without its tenants this business wouldnt exist, its a tenanted estate of pubs, the company makes their money by buying beer, and selling it on to their tenants, and also from rent. they make more money from beer than rent. The stuff that I added was added in a way that i tried to make impartial,and stick to the facts and also I think it is very important that people know about this side of the business, and anybody wanting information about this company should be entitled to read both halves of the story. This is a VERY big part of their business model. I thought Wiki was about giving people as much information as possible about the subject matter? I have 10 years experience with this company, and know a lot about how they operate. This pub revolution movement is not just a case of people moaning on facebook, its a large proportion of tenants giving their views. All im doing is giving people another bit of information about this company, surely more information, as long as its factual cannot be seen as vandalism? On just about every page on wikipedia concerning a company there is a section dealing with people criticisms of the company, why should this article just tell one side? Im not here to argue with you, but it could be said that deleting this bit of information about this company could be down to a conflict of interests. As long as i'm sticking to the facts where is the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pubinteresting (talk • contribs) 04:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Why did you remove my information? Just stating the facts of the matter. How terribly upsetting and stressful. :-(

[[MTX Audio
Thumbin through all my articles eh? Daniel Christensen (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Tag
Would you please check the unsourced tag on Timeline of Turks between 6th and 14th centuries. ( It is sourced on the 30 th of Oct.) Have a nice day. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the unsourced tag, but I have replaced it with no inline citations as it is not clear what information has been taken from each source. Thedarxide (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There is no inline citations. But how can it be ? This is not a text. This is a just list of events. There are more than 100 events and the number may increase. It is practically almost impossible to source each event by a different reference since the very same reference might be used for a number of events. I checked the other timelines in this Wiki. (e.g. Timeline of French history, Timeline of German history,  Timeline of British history.) There  are no reference lits (let alone inline citations) in these articles. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Divine intervention / Dittohead
Do you really think that the song is a tribute to Limbaugh just cause the review says so? The review says "partly tribute" too, something which is not reflected in the article. Meaningful Username (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Spam sites
Wikipedia policy requires more than the site be operational![http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naihanchi&action=historysubmit&diff=328190155&oldid=328118724 A lot more. Nice try, but I've reported the site as spam. It's not stable, it's not notable, it has no outside sources verifying its reliability, so I've removed it from the article, as I've removed it from all articles.

Please feel to debate the issue at my spam report. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Glossary of exercise terms


The article Glossary of exercise terms has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary, as per WP:DICDEF

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Warrah (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)