User talk:Torchwoodwho/Archive 2

Reuploaded for speedy deletion
hey mate, you said there wasnt enough on the article reuploaded so I added some more, is it okay now. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coheed56 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

great, To be honest these are hard pages to mess around with becuase any reference is purely balcklisted due to the nature of this website —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coheed56 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

LiveJournal site comparison
Thanks! I'm hoping this will be a useful resource as I couldn't find anything comparable. I've made some minor changes and copied the page into the Main namespace. If there's any suggestions or changes you would make to improve the article in any way I'd be very appreciative!

Wildilocks (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm really chuffed to have my first article have such a positive comment, especially so soon after putting it up!

Wildilocks (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto to the above but even more so now, thankyou for being so welcoming! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildilocks (talk • contribs) 08:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No kidding...
Mind if I ask what chapter? CiTrusD (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, I understand. You could probably tell I'm less worried about privacy given my user page. In any case, it is always cool to hear from another brother. CiTrusD (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I guess living in an area most of the country thinks is in Canada helps filter out potential wackos, hence my relaxed attitude toward sharing it. Besides, everyone knows people in this neck of the woods have guns. :) CiTrusD (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of other templates
Removing other templates is not advisable in case the original editor's point is still valid. Unless the speedy is blatantly unjustified, then it should always stay where there is doubt. αѕєηιηє t/c 09:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I could say exactly the same about the AfD process with regards to the speedy. αѕєηιηє t/c 09:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That being said, the speedy deletion process is designed to be exactly that - speedy. AfD is by no means fast. αѕєηιηє t/c 09:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and a note for you about Duckchief's userpage. You should not edit their userpage unless it has been vandalised or otherwise violates policy. This is not a policy, but it is a well accepted faux pas.
 * I think I'm the one who always ends up starting debates, haha. αѕєηιηє t/c 12:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! Anyway, how has your day so far been? αѕєηιηє t/c 12:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wish I got vandalised more often. I'd wear it as a badge of honour. αѕєηιηє t/c 13:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed you're not using WP:TW, a recommendation for you there. It is such a great tool, and very simple. Good for setting CSD/AfD/RPP etc. αѕєηιηє t/c 13:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Help appreciated
Thanks for saving my article, or at least trying to, I was just about to throw in the towel. It's a first time I use this. I have now amended quite a lot already, there is hardly anything left but it doesn't seem to meet the approval. Please help me into what else I could do to get this article accepted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckchief (talk • contribs) 09:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome Message

 * Thanks.Guildpaddy (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are kind enough. I will let you know when there is a need.Guildpaddy (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Pluto
Not a problem. Can't imagine people would search that string and expect to be taken anywhere else. CiTrusD (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks
No problem. An indefblock seems like a good remedy. Spellcast (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Adminship

 * It's a little more difficult than I was expecting - but as far as time concerns, it's not much more different from how it was; I just spend less time doing the usual "basic editor" stuff I used to do and more time handling block requests, speedies, unblock requests, etc. and so forth. The majority of the time is spent making sure everything you do is backed up by policy, consensus, or a damn good reason that itself could be backed up by one of the first two. You've also got to spend some time explaining your actions when someone comes by with a question, which does happen regularly.
 * If you're planning on running, I'd recommend looking over these pages and getting acquainted with those various procedures first. These should give you a good understanding of what will be expected of you, and what you can expect as an admin. Some of these you've probably already read or worked with, but it doesn't hurt to double-check.
 * WP:SYSOP
 * WP:AFD - Participate in deletion debates, and consider closing some of the snowball keeps once you've gotten fairly good experience
 * WP:XFD - Other deletion debates are helpful too; also keep in mind you should review some closed cases to figure out what consensus is and how it is determined.
 * WP:PROT - The protection policy
 * WP:BLOCK - The blocking policy (you WILL get asked about something tricky from here in your RfA)
 * WP:COPY - Copyright policies
 * WP:AIV - Report and revert vandalism, and make sure to file reports correctly (only after final warning, or (if an account) when excessively blatant)
 * WP:AN - Admin's noticeboard - while the discussions are aimed mostly as admins, you're not forbidden from posting, and reading through the discussions can help you understand what we deal with.
 * WP:DRV - Deletion review - again, while in most cases you're not going to be able to see the article, it can help to review some of the cases and figure out why X gets undeleted when Y doesn't.
 * Advice for new administrators - Good to read ahead of time.
 * Administrators' reading list - For anything I haven't covered above.
 * WP:RFA - Know what is expected of candidates and prepare for that. Can't hurt to participate either, but don't participate for the sake of getting "back-scratching" !votes.
 * Admin coaching - While not required (I didn't do this), it's basically an adopt-a-user for experienced editors. It helps get you acquainted with administrative procedure and policy while working with an admin.
 * The most important thing to realize is that while adminship is "no big deal", deciding who IS an admin IS a big deal. Work to make yourself worthy of the trust the community is going to put with you should you decide to do this. It is a great responsibility, but I think you could handle it. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 12:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

speedy
I am a little puzzled why you thought the article on Rick turner did not assert importance. If you thought the importance was insufficient, the proper course would have been to place a PROD or an AfD. But in fact the article at present shows not only an indication pf importance, but the importance and sourcing is such that I think it would easily survive AfD. Agreed, the guy who wrote the article should not have removed he tag, but it was not justified in the first place. What I would have done is readded it with an appropriate edit summary to indicate this, and then removed the tag. -- or just left the guy a note not to do that. DGG (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sharesource
Thanks. The image is still hinky, but I've given the author some examples of better screenshots (from Slashdot and Fark), so maybe we can get that fixed, as well. It's not rescue'd yet, and I'm not confident it would survive an AfD, but it's something. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Update
I've taken your advice and have retrieved some more references which I now have included on the test page that you have saved for me. (Big thank you for that). If you could give me some pointers as what else could be of importance to imporve my page? Cheers! Duckchief (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckchief (talk • contribs) 16:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Dyslexia
My daughter's got a bit of dyslexia, and is atheistic too; so she doesn't believe in Dog. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!
thank you for your help at electromagnetic device thingy! --CyclePat (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

YETOL
An encyclopedia, or, traditionally, encyclopædia, is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge. Encyclopedias are divided up into articles with one article on each subject covered. The articles on subjects in an encyclopedia are usually accessed alphabetically by article name and can be contained in one volume or many volumes, depending on the amount of material included.

I am supplying infomation about a website/company, Im am supplying the globe with histoy about this particular website. Please rethink your decision. It bothers me that you disagree with my writing. Triippe (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply
I have read the rules, and the article does apply. It is a secondary source and a independent secondary source. Triippe (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Your message
I was about to offer to restore it on a subpage page of his, but he recreated it before I finished my message. Anyway, hopefully the AfD will be a learning experience for him. Spellcast (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Tremendous helpful!
Your tips have been tremendous helpful. I now understand what was wrong with the article. Being a PR person, I created a PR article which was not acceptable. Could you have another look at my test page and let me know if my changes are acceptable and the article is now Wikipedia worthy? Very much appreciated. Duckchief (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please Assist
Can you help with that?Spellmanloves67 (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for all the constructive help, owe you one :) Duckchief (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Streamlink article
I take vehement exception to your speedy deletion of my article yesterday, on which I spent a fair bit of writing. Your characterization of it as "blatant advertising" is false, it was neither advertising nor blatant, it was a legitimate article in standard wiki style. You apparently missed the rest of the criteria, which state, "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." My copy wasn't event CLOSE to the character of marketing language -- there are other articles which are but at least get a "rewrite" tag instead of your deletion. ITunes and other paid download tools are commercial services but are nevertheless of valid interest.

Your charge is absurd. I am a longtime Wiki contributor and also a subscriber to the service, and my whole reason for writing the article was the hope that (1) it would be of use to other users, who are many, and (2) somebody else would also amplify it with a useful technical info on points that puzzled me.

I don't know if you have an anti-paranormal bias, and I doubt you even checked, but the article was an OPEN EXISTING LINK, for a service that might even be approaching hundreds of thousands of ::users, I wasn't able to get the numbers yet. I have no connection whatever to Premiere Radio or interest in it, I believed the article of use/interest.

As I do not know how to undelete an article and did not save the text of my work, I will thank you to immediately restore the full text of it and apologize for your pretty gross mischaracterization of my effort. (Please also do me the favor also of a pointer towards how to undelete, if you're going to be this careless.) Chris Rodgers (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Chris, I am sorry that you feel my tagging was incorrect but I do stand by it. I am not able to undelete your work and I would like to explain how the speedy deletion process works... When an editor, any editor, feels that an article meets the criteria for speedy deletion they can tag it for such deletion. At that time the creator of the article is informed of the tag and offered the chance to place a hangon notice on the tagged article. It is then that an article creator can explain why they feel that an article should not be deleted on the talk page of the article in question. At this point an administrator reviews the speedy deletion tag and decides whether or not to delete the article. In this case an administrator reviewed the article and agreed that the article fit the criteria for speedy deletion as G11 (or advertising). The best I can offer is that you contact the administrator who reviewed the article and ultimately deleted it and ask for a restoration. It is up to an administrator as to whether to uphold the speedy deletion or not. Also, although I appreciate that you put a lot of work into the article you must understand that all work submitted to the wiki becomes part of the project and Ownership of the article is forfeited. This was not a personal decision, and I appreciate your frustration.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * TWW, appreciate your responding, filling me in with respect to deletion procedure, and advising the admin; I'll assume/hope he checks back here for the details. Reviewing the general criteria again, however, they specify that speedy deletes -- as opposed to VfD's, which at least give a writer a shot at preserving their work, non-ownership notwithstanding -- are for things like patent nonsense, banned user work, and pure vandalism.  Even G11, which as I noted does not apply merely for being about a single product (goodbye lengthy M$Windows articles?), indicates that to apply it must promote, which my article did not, it just informed, and had to be "blatant", i.e. "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic", and I stand by my comment that I wrote it carefully in order to be of use to future readers, on top of the fact it was already an existing open link without an article.  The deleting admin's user page suggests he adds the criteria that a topic must be significant, but this is a service off a commercial show that has millions of listeners a night plus a wide carry overseas, and that's for just one of the shows it apparently serves.  I'm happy to add that info if it'd make the significance point for him, but it was a first draft late at night, killed without discussion (see above on speedy criteria).  So I think that establishes both that it's significant, and that it should have been an AfD at worst, not a speedy kill.  Thank you for responding.  Chris Rodgers (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Don't want to beat this to death, but feel the points are useful.  Just noticed the criteria page also includes a non-criteria section which includes a useful suggestive comment, my brackets, "Earnest efforts are never vandalism [or advertisement], so to assume good faith, do not delete as vandalism [or advertisement] unless reasonably certain", and while it's impossible to memorize everything, on the declaring significance point (is every Simpsons episode summary significant?) Don't_demolish_the_house_while_it's_still_being_built and Give_an_article_a_chance are useful aids in not making people leave WP in frustration too.  Tx.
 * I appreciate your input, but please keep in mind that anyone can tag an article if they believe it to meet the criteria, and I believed it to meet the criteria. As I stated above, this is why an administrator reviews the tags and makes a decision about the case. If I was in an administrative role and I was reviewing a speedy deletion tag I would take greater care in double checking to make certain that the article meets the criteria before deleting, and I'm certain the admin who closed this matter exercised the same care. All people are prone to making incorrect assessments and this is why such checks and balances are employed in the process. I am not further involved in the issue of your article, as at this moment is 100% up to an administrator and I hold to the belief that I tagged the article in good faith. You do not have to be employed by or otherwise have ownership of the subject matter to write an advertising article. Sometimes it happens purely by coincidence. I would like to direct you to this discussion where an article was speedily deleted several times for being advertising. I helped coach the editor into fine-tuning the article. It has been untagged since recreation and stands as an acceptable article. Once again, I hope this helps.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: References
You might be looking for WikiProject Fact and Reference Check - they're the project that coordinates all such efforts, and their page has links to references that can help you out, including categories that contain poorly referenced articles. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Intergender Wrestling
Right on. Looks better than fine now. When I tagged it, I was about 90% sure it was one of the 3 million hoax pages we'll see this week. He cleaned it up good though in just a few minutes, it seems. Thanks for the note. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 06:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

added your name to the wrong spot on the Vandal Proof page
I believe you added your name to the wrong list on the Vandal Proof page. You added it to the list of people recently approved instead of the list of people waiting to be approved. The list you wanted was the shorter one located closer to the top. I just thought I'd point that out. Have a good one! PeaceWacoJacko (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Dear Torchwoodwho, in communicating with Discospinster, I neglected to also thank you for the work you guys all do. Outside Wiki, it's not always clear to us how to be in harmony with the policies of your organization, but no one should fail to appreciate the difficulty and enormity of your jobs. So, thanks and kind regards, Jim Brown —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesfbrown (talk • contribs) 21:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks on saving Sexuality and space
Cheers for re-working the original so it could be kept. It's always nice to see new (and well-ref'd & written) HG articles --Cooper-42 (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Article for deletion/Battlestar Wiki (3rd nom.)
The Battlestar Wiki aritlce has been nominated for deletion for the third time. Feel free to add your comments to the corresponding discussion.--DrWho42 (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's quite fine by me.--DrWho42 (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Torchwoodwho! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. A le_Jrb talk 09:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding speedy deletion of SolidResult
Regarding your message : Speedy Deletions It seems that your only edits have been related to this particular software and you've created two articles for the same topic. If this is an error, please ask one to be removed, if not please refrain from creating these types of pages.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

>It seems that your only edits have been related to this particular software I have edited some articles including on TRIZ before but I have lost my ID, so I created a new account. I have many emails and didn't note my wikipedia account properly.

> you've created two articles for the same topic Sorry for the double articles, it's a mistake. One comment on one of them after the last edition was "please delete this one I don't manage to do so" or so.

I think one article should be maintained. Thanks, P.

Matching criteria for solidResult Page
>Talk:Solidresult >Your recent edit to Talk:Solidresult doesn't seem to make sense. If you explain what you were trying to do I might be able to >help you with it.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC) >Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PAO33"

Hi,

Thanks for the proposal.

To complete the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_project_management_software page I wanted to add solidresult on this table and an article explaining the differences with other approaches. Most (all?) software use Gantt Chart but this is not the only approach.

Then I took several articles of other software, merged and edited them with solidresult info so it explains the differences.

If external links makes it look like advertisement, of course I remove those links. I clearly want to explain why gantt chart is not the only or best way to display plannification for innovating projects.

Any help welcome ;) P.

Re: Crossing the Line
Your recent line in the AfD for list of fictional magic users cuts very close to the line of a personal attack. "Also, everyone but you seems to be just fine going on our existing guidelines," is not very civil and is a sweeping generalization. I would appreciate if you didn't use that kind of language with me in the future as I haven't made any kind of assertions toward you.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith per our policies. That was merely a statement of fact; everyone else that I have encountered, and everyone else within the AfD thus far, have had no problems locating, perusing, and utilizing our existing CLN and stand-alone list guidelines.  However, if you find something lacking in said guidelines, anyone and everyone is free to discuss them on the relevant pages. Celarnor Talk to me  16:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see no good faith in a sweeping comment like you made and I assert that you did not assume good faith toward me. There is no policy or guideline for the inclusion of non-inclusion of a particular list. Only a manual of style. All proposals I have seen to define such criteria for inclusion similar to WP:N have been rejected and items such as WP:LISTCRUFT are essays and not guidelines.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please re-read WP:LISTS, in particular, this section. If you don't feel that it is sufficient, that is a discussion for the talk page of the relevant guidelines. Celarnor Talk to me 16:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read it several times and it does not in any way define the vast majority of arguments for why lists are brought to AfD or on what basis such AfD's are closed. By the letter of the policy, for which I commented in the AfD, there is no good reason to nominate any list for deletion unless it is made up. List such as the playmates birthdays and sampled songs also have clear verifiability and were still deleted and all efforts to further define criteria so that lists no longer clog up AfD have been rejected by the community. All facts.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, any editor is allowed to justify their AfD opinions by backing up their statements with commentary on why they feel a certain way. Anything less is censorship.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Um...okay? And I'm equally allowed to refute those opinions. Assertion is no better than rebuttal. Celarnor Talk to me 16:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said you weren't allowed to. I took exception to your tone in implying I had not read the policies you pointed out and your generalization that every other wikipedian who is performing any kind of diligence finds the current guideline applicable to an AfD argument. We're obviously in very different wave lengths and I don't think I want to continue discussing this with you because it only seems to be leading us both into further confusion.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Improvement Tags
I removed the tags because I thought I had adequately addressed the issues. Is this not kosher? Who decides when a tag no longer applies?Deuces are wild! (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegas949 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Frank the Tank (THE BRO's)
A tag has been placed on Frank the Tank (THE BRO's) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Torchwood Who? (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of 194.83.177.252
I was trying to post an abuse report, following instructions on .--AkselGerner (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

vandalproof
Hey there.. I am unable to connect still.--Cahk (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I am happy with Twinkle and the rollback right anyhow. --Cahk (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)