User talk:Torchiest/Archive 3

Sugar Bear
Hey, Torchiest. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting here on the possible ban of Sugar Bear. RG (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very, very much for the barnstar! RG (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Skinny Puppy - In Solvent See release date
"fixed release date info for In Solvent See, we don't put rumors in an encyclopedia)"

There's talk on SP's litany forums that SPV is now mentioning a November release for "In Solvent See", that's why I mentioned that the release date was said to be August, and now possibly November. Despite what Amazon says, an August 31st release date is almost definitely not going to happen, since it's nearly July and nothing has been announced yet.

Also, the album being called "In Solvent See" is a rumor itself, that has not actually been announced or confirmed by anyone. Look into it. If you're so informed about release dates, you should also be aware that the album title itself is a rumor. So if you're so worried about rumors on an encyclopedia, you should delete the entire In Solvent See section and page or called it untitled for now, since that title is not official and the album is unlikely to be called that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.150.17 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments needed

 * Following a month-long process of multiple editors to have "Fictional history of Spider-Man" conform to Manual of Style (writing about fiction), one editor has objected and wishes for the article, which has been the subject of three deletion discussions, to remain as is.


 * Alternately, the proposed new version appears at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox.


 * Your input, as an editor involved in the deletion discussion, is invited at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Backlog Elimination Drive Has Begun
Hello, I just wanted to take a moment and announce that the July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive has started, and will run for a month. Thanks for signing up. There's a special prize for most edits on the first day, in case you've got high ambitions. Enjoy! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 03:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of List of Angela Anaconda episodes
Hey. I removed your speedy deletion tag of this article and gave my reasons on its talk page. If you'd like to comment, or if you have brilliant ideas about what else I should do or what I'm doing now, that would be great. I've read the relevant policy and a billion essays on how to handle this sort of dispute, but most of my work has been on low-traffic articles, so I've never actually done it, and I could stand to be trout-slapped a few times if I'm messing up. Thanks, Annalise (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Samsung S860


The article Samsung S860 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Article was never more than a copy of a spec sheet with broken formatting

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. &mdash;dgies tc 07:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Media Matters for America at WP:RS
Hello there, Torchiest. There was a recent discussion at WP:ANI regarding the systematic removal of Media Matters for America as a reliable source. I've started an RfC regarding MMfA, Media Research Center, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, Newsbusters etc. at Identifying reliable sources. Some of us believe that these hyperpartisan sources should never be used as factual sources at Wikipedia, due to their tendency to selective edit facts. Please participate in this important discussion, concerning one of Wikipedia's most fundamental editing policies, on the Reliable Sources Talk page here. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Promotion nominations
For things nominated as spam, I will delete it if it uses promotional language or seems to only say unbalanced good stuff, or has too much information on the how to take advantage of the promotion. However if the style is informative, or only a small part is advert like, then I will decline it, as someone could edit off the advert. In the case of Houston two step there is no language there encouraging people to make it, or saying where to get it, so it does not look like an advert. Of course the person may be pushing some promotion by putting the article in, and there may be a lot of that going on, people with some political agenda improving the encyclopedia where it supports it. However we just accept that, because over all it is an improvement, and we can't complain about imbalance. For Houston two step a prod will probably do, there is no urgency to get rid of it as it is not harming Wikipedia. The risk could be that it is deprodded for no good reason and then an AFD with a bit more work, but even with a 20% chance of a prod deletion, it would be worth trying out the prod. I suspect the drink is non notable, but there is not a speedy delete option for drinks! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 18:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC).

Re: Talk:Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran
Your comments at Talk:Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran would be greatly appreciated.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 21:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive invitation
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 23:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC).

RfC: Partisan sources
I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Godlike (single)
Hello Torchiest. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Godlike (single), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''A redirect is not a disambiguation page. Please ask on my talk if there was a different reason this ought to be deleted.''' Thank you. Courcelles 14:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Light (KMFDM single)
Hello Torchiest. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Light (KMFDM single), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Redirects are not disambig pages. Thank you. Courcelles 14:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

KMFDM / Industrial edits
Regarding your comment about cited discogs.com, I left a response on my page, but in case you don't see it: Thanks Torchiest. The thing is, I own these albums and have been referring to them as well as their liner notes for the information I have added thus far. I am not sure how I can cite this information. I turned to discogs.com since users had posted pictures of these albums. I was thinking visual proof. Please let me know what I should do in this case. Incredibly Obese Black Man (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

My Life With The Thrill Kill Kult
Do you enjoy them as well? I have started to really clean up their page and moved their discography to a new page (My Life With The Thrill Kill Kult discography). I'm hoping to get it to the same place as KMFDM. This will take a long time, or less with your help. Incredibly Obese Black Man (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I used to be a huge fan of theirs back in the 1990s. Haven't kept up with them as well lately, but I saw them in concert a few years ago, and they still have the knack for putting on a good live show.  I may chip in a little here and there, but I'm not quite as familiar with their history as I was with KMFDM's. —Torchiest talk/edits 03:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 07:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

Starflight
Hello. It's good to see the article for such an impressive, yet obscure title get the attention it needs. I'm almost done with an overhaul of the gameplay section, which was spotty and unwieldy. For instance, it stated that the MU was short for "Monetary Unit" and a fictional currency, but left several facets of gameplay unmentioned. When you describe a space exploration game, you should mention the combat. Do take a look at the rest of my changes, if you're so inclined. I'm about to change the bit on planetary exploration, and add a paragraph on the screen and interface on various platforms. I'm a bit worried that someone will come along and cry "gameguide," but my prose is descriptive, not instructive. Besides, the article fails its job if it doesn't give the readers a good overview, it's more problematic to write "the game has many different modes and features" and let the readers take it on faith than it is to describe those features, and the genre names that would normally give readers an idea of the gameplay don't work here. Besides besides, one of the major reasons behind interest in older games is their relationship to the development of their genre and to their contemporaries (the "Cripes on cripes this thing was out as the same time as Super Mario Bros?!" effect), making description necessary.

Yeah, I'm probably practicing arguments here. I should hang out less at AfD, it'd lessen the cynicism.

I'm relaxed about making statements that are apparent from the work itself, like ship upgrading being costly, or planets being far too large to search exhaustively, but I get that others need not be. As for the first paragraph, I'm thinking that it could mention cash-making and omit how cash is made, since that's covered below, and it should retain the phrase "a crystal left by an ancient race that fuels interstellar flight," because (only read this rot-13 if you know the big twist at the end) gur flagnpgvp nzovthvgl va gung fgnrzrag vf zntavsvprag. ;)

Do you happen to be able to take screenshots of planets? --Kiz o r  14:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty much okay with the changes you made. I mainly changed the first paragraph because it was just poorly written.  Particularly, "seek out and explore strange new worlds" was not the proper tone, though it could conceivably be included if it were in quotes, perhaps along with the rest of the officially stated in-game goals.  That's why I changed it to more general statements that, I feel, adequately cover the main aspects of the game, exploration of space, discovering life forms, and tagging colony worlds.  The other part of the sentence "The goal is to... discover the state of the galaxy and, later, put a stop to the state of the galaxy before it kills everything." was just awful and unwieldy, as well as being pretty uninformative.


 * The costly thing just seems like original research in a way. I mean, who's to say what's costly and what's not?  If you do a lot of mining right off the bat, it's not that hard to get to level 5 everything in short order.  Plus, the range of prices goes from (I believe) 1000 MUs for the weakest armor to 200,000 MUs for level 5 photon torpedoes.  So a blanket "costly" isn't really needed anyway, with a factor of 200 separating the high and low.  I suppose you could explain that, saying something like what I just did, but that seems like too much detail.  The ancient race part, eh, I can take it or leave it.  Again, it just seemed like an extra detail (which is explained better later on anyway).  Hope that helps. —Torchiest talk/edits 14:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, as for screenshots, I'm not sure if I've got SF loaded on my computer at home or not. I might be able to get a couple images eventually. —Torchiest talk/edits 14:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation - your input is required
A request for mediation has been filed concerning a matter in which you have participated.

The operative page is at Requests for mediation/Creampie (sexual act). Please go there and indicate your acceptance of mediation at the Parties' agreement to mediation section (or you can decline to accept mediation, if for some reason you want to.) If you have any questions about mediation, see Requests for mediation or message me. Thank you for your time and consideration. Herostratus (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I noticed that you posted as disagreeing with the request for mediation, which is your right of course. I notified everyone who made even a single post on the issue, as is required (I think), and sorry if this has been a bother to you. If your objection is just that you don't consider yourself a party to the discussion and/or don't want to be bothered with the issue, would you consider removing yourself as a party (or I'll do it for you if you request) rather than remaining as a party but actively disagreeing. Herostratus (talk) 05:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

KMFDM professional review links deletion
Hello!

I'd like to know why you keep deleting the links I am providing to professional reviews of the industrial rock band KMFDM? These reviews are written and posted by me on my own industrial rock magazine, Fabryka. You never leave any reasons why you do it. Myself as well as an American editor spend 20 or more hours to prepare a review; from writing, to preparing the graphics, posting it online etc... Fabryka has promoted KMFDM for many years. We are personally sent their albums on a regular basis by their record label, Metropolis for professional reviews. If this happens again will report this activity to KMFDM, Metropolis and Wikipedia. Thank you.

Best Regards, NINa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrykanina (talk • contribs) 09:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Drive – Final push
Greetings GOCE Backlog elimination drive participant, We are now coming up to the last few days of the drive, the last for 2010. Currently, it looks like we will achieve our target for reducing the backlog by 10%, however, we still have huge numbers for 2009. We have 55 participants in this drive. If everyone just clears 2 articles each, we will reduce the backlog by a further 110 articles. If everyone can just do 3 articles, we will hit 165. If you have yet to work on any articles and have rollover words, remember that you do need to copyedit at least a couple of articles in this drive for your previous rollover to be valid for the next drive. There are many very small articles that will take less than 5-10 minutes to copyedit. Use CatScan to find them. Let's all concentrate our firepower on the first three months of 2009 as we approach the end of this final drive for the year. Thank you once again for participating, and see you at the finish line! – SMasters (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 02:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Spamstar of Glory
Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping article clear of spam and other nonsense. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A Momentary Lapse of Reason
The fact that the article was once at FAC does not mean that our non-free content criteria do not apply. Edit warring to keep an image which does not meet our NFCC is not at all acceptable, and I have seen users blocked for it. J Milburn (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I appreciate that. I thought the distinction was more obvious than it clearly was. In any case, the issue is now resolved, and hopefully everyone involved has learnt something from it- many people have learnt about the nature of the NFCC, while I've learnt that this particular issue is by no means clear. (Also, I did not mean to threaten you, though I did threaten another user, I was merely trying to point out the severity of the issue.) I hope there are no hard feelings- I did find the whole thing a little tiring... J Milburn (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Industrial music
Thanks for the message. I will take a look at the discussion and see if I have anything to add. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 15:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)