User talk:*Spark*

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Comment I will reply to any new comments here, not on your talk page. If I post a comment on your talk page, please respond there. Thanks

Contents

[edit] Richard Dawkins

Thanks for letting me know. The section has been removed. =) Nishkid64 23:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Limhof.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Limhof.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valid edits

Thanks for catching that: I'm not sure how it happened. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 15:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Album covers as fair use

What is the difference between the issue I had and the use of an album cover at The Cars?

[edit] Deletion Review

Yes me opinion remains the same. From what you've written though I guess your not looking it in the way of deletion review. The question is not does "X" deserve an article, it is did the article which was deleted get deleted properly. The spam claim to me is borderline (advertish), but on balance I couldn't see a great deal in the article (as I said, I'd have deleted for no assertion of notability). Now that is of course different to saying any and every article written about "X" will be spam and will be deleted, or that they are intrinsicly non-notable. I'm not adverse to someone writing a suitable article on the subject, as indeed they are fully entitled to. Your argument is about the subject, not the article. If the article text had said "xxxx are a bunch of <expletive>", would you be arguing that we should restore the article? Surely everything you have listed would still be true? This is where deletion review becomes difficult if you can't actually see the article in question.

Some other points though without looking in great depth (these are general and may or maynot be appropriate in this case, i.e. I'm not trying to open a debate here I think this is irrelevant to the review) "and it's no different from any other Hall of Fame article" - doesn't mean anything each article should stand on it's own, generally we don't say everything of every particular type is inherrently notable and also WP:INN. 2I fail to see how a link to this page from the artist's page is an insult when notable artists show up to participate in the induction ceremonies2", it is potentially spamming, many top artists will have received numerous awards from numerous bodies many are pretty irrelevant, we don't link to each and every one of the issuers websites, we will list the significant ones and use internal links as appropriate. Many of these notable artists shop at supermarkets, we don't link every supermarket they've been seen in on the artists page... We also don't do notability by association, brother of a celebrity doesn't make you inherrently notable, again the subject has to stand on their own. --pgk 10:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my argument is on the subject, not the article as it was. My point is in the spirit of WP, the article should have been tagged with appropriate templates (references,etc) and not speedied. A simple google search would have shown notability of the subject, in which case tagging and giving the article a chance to be expanded is a better route. *Spark* 12:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure I'd agree on the spirit of WP is to take in all sorts of stuff and hope it might get turned into a useful article by someone, indeed the focus these days is much more on quality not quantity. As I also described on the DRV, I personally don't see the article as was as being a particularly useful starting point for a quality article, and although I wouldn't necessarily have removed it as spam, I can see how someone else might. --pgk 14:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
You may also be interested in this --pgk 14:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Spark/s; since the DRV is already ongoing, I'm reluctant to undelete while it's in process. Also, the tally so far looks highly favorable toward undeletion in an "official" capacity in a few days; can you wait that long? I'll try to keep an eye on it, but if things change or you need more help, let me know. -- nae'blis 23:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macroevolution

Thanks for correcting that; I think you got it right. There had been a few nonsense edits that got layered in, then some legit edits on top. I screwed up trying to straighten it out, sorry for the mess. Thanks again. Doc Tropics 03:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW - this happened in the course of tracking and reverting User:Whoutz, who alos left footprints at Evolution, and Creation-evolution controversy. Again, sorry for the mess and thanks for the cleanup. Doc Tropics 17:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see how you might get a out of step while dealing with him. Seems very persistent in pushing POV. *Spark* 17:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pepsi Syndrome Page

I'm currently in the process of a major cleanup and revision of the "Pepsi Syndrome" page you listed as PROD, would it be alright with you if I remove the prod tag as per wikipedia:Proposed_Deletion? Once it's cleaned up, then I'd be willing to take on a hunt for sources to assert half the things the author is saying in the article, but given the fact that it has been edited by three editors now since the PROD went up, I'd like a chance and a little time to make it encyclopedic. If I can't verify the claims made in the article to wiki standards, I'll either reprod it myself or let you do the honors, or take it to AfD in the absence of consensus on the talk page. Thank you, Wintermut3 02:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • If the material in that article could be proven, it would make it notable with room to spare, but I'm not going to contest a PROD over it, it's not that important. If someone can come back and give me a write-up with more to work with, then I might consider it. Though given the controversy with the other editors, I do feel an AfD may perhaps be more appropriate. I'm leaving the prod tag as it is pending deletion, however. If it gets challanged I am inclined to be on your side. Wintermut3 20:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, that is friendlier

Thank you for helping me. :-) —Doug Bell talk 01:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] signature

Hey *Spark*, is there any reason your signature links to a subpage which then redirects to your userpage? It's a little confusing to have the "/s" on there... -- nae'blis 02:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image description page

Thanks for reminding me of that problem, I'm going to look into the possibility of adding a history link for that image upload page, as I've been annoyed by the exact same thing before... -- nae'blis 18:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about the mess

and thanks for cleaning up. But most of all, I apologize for calling you "sparkle" in the edit summary, I don't know how that happened  :) --Merzul 18:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

And another thing... I had moved some conversation to the off-topic subpage. Seeing the current discussion, I do realize it was a mistake. Good job and good luck in the discussion! --Merzul 12:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. With all the churn there it's easy to see how something might be considered offtopic. It was fine to archive it, I just changed the title so people would know to look there as well for relevant discussions. --*Spark* 13:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mad Max 2 Interceptor

I seen Road Warrior like six million times as a kid - had it memorized and I distinctly remember the mechanic saying "last of the V8 intercepts" not "Interceptor" - but whatever. Cyberia23 05:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reverts

My apologies, I will check them all now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dev920 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Done. Sorry about that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forced image size wording poll

Hi Spark. Just to inform you that I changed the “required” to “recommended” on the last proposal text. Because that’s a discussion we already came to a conclusion on. --Van helsing 21:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2A/s/p/User_talk%7E_Spark__78aa.html"