User talk:Zaphraud/2008

AWESOME-O
I liek Mudkips too!--Piepie (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Proteus
I thought Apple's new standard was unified... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robby.is.on (talk • contribs) 15:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a hardware interconnectivity guideline rather than a software fashion one?Zaphraud (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robby.is.on (talk • contribs) 01:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I took a look around and saw what you meant and changed the article also eliminated "obsolete" and replaced it with "older" so it was more NPOV. Better? Zaphraud (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, fine. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robby.is.on (talk • contribs) 13:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:CookieJar.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:CookieJar.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Nv8200p talk 20:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Project Chanology
note: regarding the following inclusions:

Please do not add poorly sourced information to this article. A link to a YouTube video is not an acceptable source. If you find information backed up to a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source, that would be acceptable, as long as a WP:CITE is provided. Cirt (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have a secondary WP:RS/WP:V secondary source for the info you were trying to add, please let me know either on my talk page or on the article's talk page, and I can help you add it, format the cite for the info, and undo my last edit. Cirt (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering it shows the actual event in question, and is not merely a reporter talking about it, anyone with a working set of eyeballs and ears can verify it, making it an extremely reliable source, given both the subject material and the nature of the video. Are you actually suggesting that someone went to the expense of hiring actors and creating a large set just for the purpose of creating a forgery? Thats totally absurd! Next time, view the actual source.


 * As far as if the source is secondary or not, I can address that issue with the observation that the publisher of the video channel apparently felt it acceptable to tie it to a first and last name, making it a publication. The campaign for Barack Obama hosts video on YouTube as well, and I seriously doubt I would see the type of objections you raise if that were cited as a source in his article... frankly, you have dropped the ball in your revert war.


 * My edit merely states that something took place and does not contain any opinion. You question the fact that it even happened at all with your revert, which is just plain silly. I'm not injecting any opinions into the article, just stating that the protest also took place in the San Francisco area and providing proof that it did in fact happen as requested. There's plenty more out there, BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED... You can't possibly keep this content off by claiming it didn't.Zaphraud (talk) 06:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am simply citing what is the standard for sourcing usage on Wikipedia. Yes, I don't think we should be using video posts from YouTube as sources.  Please take a moment to look at WP:RS and WP:V.  Do you ever want this article to get to WP:FA status, or do you just want a particular piece of information to get in there?  If it is the former, then I suggest we keep to secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources.  I kindly request that you undo your last edit to the article Project Chanology.  Cirt (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the applicable policy on such matters and located the following text at [sources]:
 * Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.
 * Thus, I would not expect to be able to use such a source in the article on Scientology itself, and I have no problem with someone replacing the source with a reference to a more mainstream article published in a traditional paper format, once such an article has had time to make it off the presses and into wide circulation.
 * For the meanwhile, I'll leave reference I used, but remove attention-getting embed for the purposes of cleaning up the article as you have requested.Zaphraud (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I will leave you some time to think this over, and won't remove that info myself for the time being. But I again ask you to consider this question - what is more important to you - that that particular bit of information be present in the article, or that the article's quality status eventually get upgraded? Because from my experience with WP:GACs and also with WP:FACs - I can tell you right now that this sort of dubious source usage will most certainly be an impediment to this article ever reaching WP:FA status - and actually it also jeopardizes this article's current WP:GA-quality status rating. Cirt (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going to be coming back to the article when I have more free time to search for a more solid mention of events in that area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaphraud (talk • contribs)
 * Thank you, that is what I requested from the start. In the meantime can you please remove the dubiously-sourced material from the article?  Cirt (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, it's just really not a good source at all, not even to say a protest occurred in San Francisco. For examples of some good sources for that type of thing, please take a moment to look at Project Chanology protests, February 10, 2008 and Project Chanology protests, March 15, 2008.  (I'll start looking myself for WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that are acceptable to add in the info that March 15 protests occurred in San Francisco.) I ask again for you to please remove that information and cite.  Cirt (talk) 07:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Zaphraud - I understand where you are coming from about the sillyness of not allowing a YouTube video to verify a simple fact. If I made the rules for WP, I would allow it. I even made a thread at the village pump about this a few days ago. Hopefully the Wikipedia concensus will change over time to incorporate a better mix of objective truth AND verifiable truth, but for now the policies are what they are and we should abide by them.


 * The Chanology article is under extra scrutiny for policy violations since it is a current news event, and a very controversial one at that. We are also working hard to get the article to Featured Article status so that it may be displayed on the main Wikipedia page, and WP:RS technicalities will prevent that. Sad but true. Anyways, this is why I have removed your edit to the Chanology article.


 * I am also looking for sources to replace the YouTube video - as soon as we find one we'll put back the stuff you wrote. There is one at the LAist, though I'm not sure if it meets the standards of WP:RS. Cirt is the expert on such things. Z00r (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

, can you show me the link to this cite from LAist ? Cirt (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, here's 2. Note they are not full-fledged articles,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z00r (talk • contribs) 09:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll look into that soon. Cirt (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I elected a video source rather than a source containing published images that seems to be a blog (professional or otherwise) or at the very least, in a blog-like format (the *ist sites for example) solely on the basis of the fact that it is vastly more difficult to produce a convincing counterfeit video rather than image, and so if I was going to source the information on anything less than organizations with the most accepted journalistic credentials, it ought to be from a format that had made it more verifiable for technical reasons alone.It is my hope that a fresh round of Sunday (today) news publications will yield some human interest stories that are considered reliable sources.Zaphraud (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is most probable that there will continue to be lots more articles in WP:RS/WP:V secondary news sources. Cirt (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I found something for Mountain View at http://www.mv-voice.com/news/show_story.php?id=488 (so did someone else..) but still nothing on SF yet...Zaphraud (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi-C (rapper)
Just so you know, I have closed the AfD discussion for this article and re-opened the issue at Deletion review. I did not move anybody else's comments there, so if you still want to weigh in, you'll have to do it again! Sorry for the inconvenience. ... disco spinster   talk  00:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Facebook
Talk:Facebook Gary King (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Gary King (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You claim that archive.org is not a reliable source? OK, then, name something better for that purpose... oh, wait, there isn't any such better source for publicly available historical internet archives, is there? Zaphraud (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How would archive.org be reliable in a situation where the domain name or even simply the path for a website has changed? It won't be. Gary King (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It shows EXACTLY was at THAT website at THAT point in time. You are mistaking the location on the web for the company that owns that location. I explained this clearly by comparing it to a ground-breaking. When a company relocates, one does not assert that the ground-breaking for the building they moved into took place when the company was founded! Zaphraud (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If MSN started at http://msn.microsoft.com/ in 2000 and then later moved to http://www.msn.com/ while redirecting traffic from http://msn.microsoft.com/ to http://www.msn.com/ in 2005, does that mean that MSN started in 2005 or 2000? Gary King (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In such a situation, it would mean that the company started on the date that the company started, and that the site launched on the date that the site opened on that specific domain name. This is about the use of the word launched as it is used with respect to an individual domain name, and not meant to dispute the founding of any one particular company. I am completely aware of the fact that a companies name and/or registered trademarks operate in a manner that is almost totally separate from that of the domain name system; in fact this is often the cause of legal disputes because the two systems are totally separate and often do not match up nicely.
 * Besides which, one can easily use archive.org to check the content of the website in the year 2000, and it appears that Microsoft had control of the domain back then as well, which matches my memory... Please examine http://web.archive.org/web/20000510094425/http://www.msn.com/ to see what the domain name had on it at that time. Like a lot of Microsoft websites, it has content hosted literally all over the place, and if you were loading it at the time with a Microsoft browser, I have little doubt that you may have been redirected elsewhere, but not everybody who may have loaded the site was willing to be sent somewhere random with Javascript or an server error code back in 2000... Oh man, seeing that MSN butterfly brings back bad memories... Zaphraud (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am continuing this discussion on the article's talk page. Gary King (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:ProseTimeline
Template:ProseTimeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Marya Hornbacher, and Huggle
I reverted the following edit:

+   + Marya Hornbacher uses a Macintosh laptop

Since it is irrelevant. If I accidentally removed the info template as well, I apologize.

For more info on what a Huggle is, see Wikipedia:Huggle  :)  Addionne (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Veganism
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. -kotra (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC) They were not. There is a matching section in the article. Please actually read the articles before you make these allegations.


 * I realize now they were not vandalism (and I had read the article beforehand). I have responded on my talk page. -kotra (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comment..
Was that necessary? We have been apart for several months now, nearly a full year. What prompted that comment?  Ksy92003  ( talk ) 02:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008
Please stop. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did to Sarah Palin, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. mboverload @ 02:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not defamatory when it is true; Sarah Palin knew the fetus had Downs and allowed it to come to term anyways, thus deliberately giving birth to a Downs Syndrome child. In order for something to be defamatory, it must first be false! Zaphraud (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

AN/I Notification
This is to notify you that I have started a thread regarding your recent edits on AN/I Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents.--Crossmr (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
Please read our policy on personal attacks at WP:NPA, this edit was completely out of line regardless of what you think they did.--Crossmr (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep thats why I removed it myself, it was never meant to be saved in the first place... note that I had removed it 2 minutes *prior* to your posting this notice here, and why you weren't the one to revert it :-) Zaphraud (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You should never have made it in the first place. Reverting a personal attack doesn't give you a pass on it.--Crossmr (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Track Palin
Talk:Track Palin, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Track Palin and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Track Palin during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Grutness...wha?  01:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

File:ChineseSoybeanWord.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:ChineseSoybeanWord.gif, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 03:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)