User talk:Undead Herle King

...

 * Nice user page...--Mariocossio 21:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

OK
I don't know if I'll be able to do this for long, but I'll give it a try. Please read over WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. After you do that, read the rest of this.

Most of the information that you readd is original research. Some of it happens in the game, but the game cannot be used to source it. The game can be used for "Mario can jump", but it cannot cite changes between versions. Besides that, we don't cover indiscriminate bits of info. They need to be able to be verified by reliable sources (going right back to the OR). The others like "Graphics" and "Music and sound" are also complete OR. The kings have already been removed by someone else, so I hope you'll leave those alone. TTN 18:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

...
What are you talking about? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you're talking about.
 * smacks you upside the head* Think before you say stupid stuff. I'm such of a sockpuppet that I reverted his addition of a merge tag to Koopa Troopa and Goomba. Dur. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Only administrators can delete pages. — Kurykh  03:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, speedy deletion is currently the quickest way to do it. You can blank then tag, if you really want to obscure the contents. — Kurykh  04:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Pixie dust
'"Pixie dust" althought not under this name is not a concept invented with Barrie's Tinkerbell, the concept of magical powder is ancient and that is what shall be presented here...'
 * If it wasn't called "pixie dust", why put the information into an article by that name? For that matter, why not wait until you have some information about this "ancient concept" (complete with sources to establish notability of the subject as an independent topic) rather than reviving a trivial article like pixie dust? - JasonAQuest (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For lack of a better word as both I lack the time to input any such source and knowledge of how to rename the article under the more general word that, althought not essentially better, is more useful and accessible or well, maybe it is better (I'm undecided) but I shall say that either way (whether i is a better word or "just as good") it would certainly give more to speak; Which is this alternative name that I cannot put into the title for lack of knowledge of the how-to? It is "magic powder". If the article is just deleted it wont have time to gather enough viewers able to add up on its content until the depth and antiquity, and thus the value of the page, is proven. Furthermore, even under a misguiding title it had already developed some following as to have more content than many equally valuable stubs. So as to why am I impatient as to rescue it even when it has single-handledy determined as trivial? Because once deleted it becomes invisible and there's a lot that can be added to it... Fantasy, both from literature and believe, has magic powders and magically enchanted dusts as elements of it everywhere... In Literature it is just another regular trope, in myth it becomes the religious equivalent to that... Undead Herle King (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with you on one point: if the article doesn't exist it won't attract material. The problem is that for all the time pixie dust has existed, it's attracted garbage.  Look at the edit history; it's littered with additions of random things that someone somewhere has called "pixie dust", none of which have any connection with this magical powder theme of yours except that someone wants to make the stuff sound like something out of Peter Pan.  But of course it isn't.  The article you seem to want this article to become doesn't even sound like an encyclopedia article, but some kind of research paper about the theme of magical powders in the literature and ancient legends.  And even if such an article belongs on Wikipedia, this article is not that, and the name doesn't fit; go create that article and let this half-baked mess die. - JasonAQuest (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:
What is your unsigned ID? From what I remember, I haven't warned anyone concerned Boeheim's page in a while. Thanks. GoCuse44 (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if it was my fault, then I apologize. Certainly don't mean to warn someone that doesn't deserve it. GoCuse44 (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Botany
Hi! You removed a link at Botany with this diff. Can I remind you of WP:Assume good faith and WP:Civility? I agree that the link was not needed, but perhaps you could have put it more kindly in your edit summary? Richard New Forest (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Eunuch
Hi. I've reverted your entries on Human voice and Singing. As far as I'm aware there is no connection between eunuchs and either of these subjects. Are you perhaps referring to Castrato? ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 09:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Mouse/Mole
Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Topo Gigio. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Fliponymous (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I speak Spanish, it's my mother tongue, that's my source, and I know some ItalianUndead Herle King (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

oh damn, my bad, I hate to admit it when I make a mistake... thing is "topo" is a false cogante between Italian and Spanish, in Italian "topo" is mouse, in Spanish "topo" is raton... damn...Undead Herle King (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

anyway the mistake was in good faith, it was nothing controversial!!!!!Undead Herle King (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Changing America to US
Please keep with the sources rather than changing American to US like you did in Conservapedia. American can mean relating to the USA and your change makes what is there conflict with the sources that referred to it in that way and how it refers to itself. It is not up to you to override sources because of yor point of view. Dmcq (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My point of view? I'm going for neutrality, America is a continent, North America is a sub continent, SouthAmerica is a subcontinent, United States of America is a country, it aint my fault it lacks a proper demonymUndead Herle King (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing to do with neutrality. Please show sources referring to it as a US encyclopaedia rather than an American one. Dmcq (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have asked at WT:WikiProject United States that they indicate the genberal policy on this sort of thing. Dmcq (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but please stop acting as if it were the norm in English. If you can't stand distinguishing the two continents of North and South America, "the New World" and "the Americas" are available. —WWoods (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Indian Spot-Billed Duck
This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Indian Spot-Billed Duck, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Indian Spot-billed Duck. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. VWBot (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If a non-bot reads this... I don't know how to clear the mess, before I intervined somehow the same search criteria could lead either to an empty page or to the appropiate page now the search criteria has a similiar bifurcation but both ways lead to an appropiate article on the Spot-billed duck however the older article has a warning while the newer does not.Undead Herle King (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sport
Your mass reversion of edits was singularly unhelpful, not least of all because the new structure is well cited (per WP:V and WP:CITE), unlike the previous work. Also, your characterisation of me as a vandal breaks WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. If you want to do that sort of reversion, take it to talk. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 19:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * List of fictional dogs in animation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Winston, Barney, Satch and Reginald

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Ctenollum
Please ask your question in a right forum - portal or workforce.Xx236 (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Changing the name of a page
Hi, if you want to change the name of a page, the simplest thing to do is just to start a new section on the article talk page and suggest it. A more formal way of doing it would be using a requested move, although it's probably best to do that after a discussion has taken place. Mikenorton (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will consider what to do unless I can do both. One after the other.Undead Herle King (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue is what is the most WP:COMMONNAME in English language reliable sources. I think you'll find that is "Americas". Most English sources follow the Seven continents (or one version of the six continents) convention. Doug Weller  talk 05:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The most common endonym should be what is to be used in a case that goes beyond a single language, as is the case.Undead Herle King (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? The article I linked to says:
 * The seven-continent model is usually taught in China, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, parts of Western Europe and most English-speaking countries, including Australia[22] and the United Kingdom.[23]The six-continent combined-Eurasia model is mostly used in Russia, Eastern Europe, and Japan." The combined Americas model is "often used in France and its former possessions, Italy, Portugal, Spain,[24]Romania, Latin America,[24] and Greece." And of course there's still our guideline. Different language Wikipedias often use different terms. Doug Weller  talk 19:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I said "endonyms" for a reason... China, India, Pakistan, Philippines, anglophone countries, parts of Western Europe are not using endonyms when refering to America, nor are Russia, Eastern Europe or Japan... With the exception of Canada the US and other minorities. Wikipedia has a great bias towards the US, using the, the month/day/year structure, assuming there is notability in the case of people who are nobodies beyond the US (like William Lane Craig or Ken Ham which got a platform for fame in here). There is a lot that can be done for neutrality and there is not enough done. Undead Herle King (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * No, we generally use day month year. And most of the English speaking world now uses short scale, not just the US. Your complaint seems to boil down to the English language Wikipedia being biassed towards English language usage. I don't even understand the argument that people who aren't well known outside the US aren't notable enough, we have many biographies of people who are hardly known at all in the English speaking world. Doug Weller  talk 09:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

New Warriors (TV series)
Hi Undead Herle King. While what you are adding may be factual, it is written in a not neutral way and seems like a fans point of view. Please stop edit warring and discuss this. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk)
 * The only way for something to exist in the neutral-biased spectrum is for it to be open to interpretation or uncertainty, but facts are such due to their rigid nature, "2+2=4" can be worded in many ways, some more formal (like "2+2=4") and some more informal (like "so you see, four is what you get when two is added to two"), but ALL ARE NEUTRAL, NONE CAN BE BIASED.Undead Herle King (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is true but math language is different than writing in an encyclopedic tone. The second option you list would not be fit for an encyclopedic article. I and a few other editors, and, seem to feel that the writing wasn't very encyclopedic in tone. For example "it is 2019 already and no one knows when it will air" is too informal for an encyclopedia. Maybe just add "however this goal was not met" after "with Marvel hoping to still be able to premiere the series in 2018."  I also think some people are confused since Development hell was not linked, it seemed like a personal opinion. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Then the editors should have reworded it, not deleted it. We end with something that does not take into account the current date and makes it seem like no one has edited the article this year.Undead Herle King (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To explain my original revert. You added without references "however this developmental hell was never overcome and it is 2019 already and no one knows when it will air". Who referred to "development hell" - that looks like a personal evaluation of the situation. It appears from article content, development was complete, they are having trouble selling the developed product. An assertion that "no one knows" is speculative as the involved decision makers may very possibly know when it will air and just not have widely disseminated the decision. Or maybe they know it is a lost cause and are giving up and know it will never air. Or maybe nobody anywhere actually knows what is going to happen. I judged the addition as not adding any value to the article so removed it as it looks to be a personal evaluation not backed up with sources. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't prove a negative, check the internet, try to find any evidence on what the producers know about the show airing or not, YOU WILL FAIL. You cannot give references to absence of knowledge. However there is more than enough evidence that it did not air in 2018 but again, where do I get references for that? It is like getting references for the statement that the Earth moved around the sun in the year 2018. "Development hell" is not a personal evaluation, it is a term used in movie production, I linked to it in one of my edits, where I was explaining why I had made the edit, and here Hickory Ought Shirt has linked to it. Do you want to know what value it adds? It acknowledges the FACT that it didn't air as promised, making it clear that the article has had action this year. It acknowledges the fact that there has been no new data on the subject from the producers. It acknowledges that the project failed to meet its goals. It gives the article a relevant update to those interested for them to choose whether to give up searching data on the show or to continue just in order to update the article themselves. Right now it is just a dead and OUTDATED article.Undead Herle King (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you assert something as a fact (including generalities) the onus is on you to provide a reference that supports that assertion per WP:V. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!" -- Carl Sagan. You made an assertion that basically came down to "I don't know, therefore nobody knows". "development hell" is contradicted by article content. Development is complete on the product, no buyers. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:V has no mention of probatio diabolica and anything about proving negatives. What do I do? use my google search as a reference? Because I did search, over and over and over. Development hell might be defined like that in wikipedia but this [] is somehow also development hell, broadcasting the show is the end of development, until then it is a dream. In the least the article has no notability right now. My assertion was not "I don't know", my assertion is "you cannot find someone that knows when you google, something like this should be known in the surface web, under principles of reasonable doubt". Look, you are finally making acceptable points, but the fact remains that the article is misleading by claiming "it is expected to air in December 2018", it WAS expected to air in December 2018, but only a #&/% would still expect it to air back then due to, well, you know, the arrow of timeUndead Herle King (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We do know the show did not premiere in 2018 and the lead section currently just implies that by not giving a 2018 premiere date which we would have done if the show actually did premiere in 2018 and the article was being regularly updated. We know the article is regularly being updated when new information becomes available but a random reader won't know that. We should be explicit that it didn't premiere in 2018 and not depend on implication to communicate information. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I follow, it just seems like you agree with meUndead Herle King (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agreed we shouldn't end the lead with November 2018 information. I made an edit to reflect that that shouldn't need a source as the statement can be verified. It was rejected in my mind for invalid reasons. Discussion is ongoing in article talk page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OkUndead Herle King (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)