User talk:Kickstart70

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you wish to post a new topic here, please click here.

Archives: 1 2 3

Contents 1 Live nude celebrities 2 morphing,shapeshifting 3 Creature 4 PTC Gz deletion 5 List of comic book superpowers 6 Sonic Scream 7 Pyrokinesis 8 Verification for PTC Gz 9 Re:"Merge doesn't require AFD." 10 Fork Knifing BJAODN 11 2nd Anti-Tank Regiment 12 David Asimov et. al. 13 AMA request 14 Richmond

[edit] Live nude celebrities

There are a lot, but I'll do what I can to help. tregoweth 22:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] morphing,shapeshifting

Morphing and shapeshifting are different. I was trying to make a distinction between the2. Hope my edits ouldve helped,gota doit again man.

Epaladin 16:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creature

Hi, kickstart. I'm from Van as well, where did you see the animal climbing down the tree?--Anchoress 04:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PTC Gz deletion

Kickstart--

I recently saw that the page that I created, PTC Gz, was again deleted by administrators after a debate on whether or not to do so. It seemed that most of those voting for deletion used the lack of verifiability behind the article as reason to do so. However, as a former member of the group, I can not only attest to its cultural impact on the city of Peachtree City, GA, but can also provide for administrators scanned copies of at least one of the group's album covers as well as with testimonies from other past members as to its impact and with MP3 files of some of the group's recordings, even, if necessary. I feel that these items will more than sufficiently prove the LPs'--and the group's--existence as stated in the article as well as their impact on popular culture, albeit in a relatively small arena. Thank you for paying some time to this undeletion request, and please let me know if there are other, more appropriate avenues I should instead be taking in order to reverse the deletion that has taken place.

tiganeman Andrew Lavoie

[edit] List of comic book superpowers

Let me know what I can do to help. CovenantD 01:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but I am not doing user pages or user talk pages :-) CovenantD 01:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont think that you should just move/rename the article like that without first consulting the talk page. Comic books is fiction, but so are books, movies, etc too. And since the subject is about fictional abilities, I think all qualify, I dont see why it should be limited to only comic books since fiction is limited only by imagination. Now where does fiction abilities in movies go (which probably have some simliar abilities in some obscure comic book anyways?) -- Frap 12:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic Scream

Well, it's produced by vocal cords. The only energy produced is by the body, even if some are able to put it to creative uses like Banshee. That's my thinking, anyway. CovenantD 05:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pyrokinesis

Well, since we know that fire is a chemical reaction at high temperatures, that means that pyrokinetics are either able to control chemical reactions or molecular vibration rates. The prefix pyro- pretty much limits them to molecular agitation. Either way, they are effecting molecules and atoms, not necessarily the energy itself. Besides, the -kinesis suffix pretty much limits it to movement of something. Keep 'em coming, but maybe we should move this to the articles talk page so others can see/comment on the rationale. CovenantD 05:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verification for PTC Gz

Hey Kickstart,

I wasn't sure how to get this to you in the confines of our old discussion, so I just started a new one--hope it's no big inconvenience. Since that discussion I've posted two items essential to proving PTC Gz's former existence online: one, a video clip of the talent show performance described in the Wikipedia article of both them and the Kamel Krew, located at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glkxGZDoN4g. I've also posted an image of their album, front and back, at http://img170.imageshack.us/my.php?image=scan8dm.jpg. I hope these items are useful in helping me reinstate the article and in proving that the group, while now disassembled, did exist and did create an impact in their own right in and around Peachtree City. Let me know if you need anything else and I'll do what I can to provide it, i.e. testimonies from former group members or fans back when PTC Gz were bigger than they are now.

tiganeman Andrew Lavoie

[edit] Re:"Merge doesn't require AFD."

Yes, basically, though it's a good idea to make sure the text flows consistently and the proper wiki markup is used (unlikely with a straight copy and paste and no further editing). The above statement just meant that I didn't need to do the work :) See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for the how-to. Let me know if you have any other questions. Petros471 16:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fork Knifing BJAODN

Hey, you asked me about where Fork Knifing went in BJAODN. When I added it, someone else removed it because someone ELSE had already put it in there. A direct link would be here. Hope that helps! Mo0[talk] 06:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd Anti-Tank Regiment

I have the information you are seeking. email me. (Talk: 2nd Canadian Infantry Division)Michael Dorosh 23:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Asimov et. al.

The problem is, AFD is horribly overloaded. Proposed-deletion is for (expected) non-contentious stuff; tag it and forget it. If no-one actually cares about the article enough to even remove the tag (as you did in this case) within a week, it won't get deleted, and if someone wants it restored after being deleted no-one will argue... but it means we can get it gone without clogging up AFD further, creating endless "discussion" archives, etc. etc.

The reason there was a huge swathe of them is because I spent the morning going through the Rapists category (and a few other related ones) marking the non-encyclopedic (or completely unsourced) ones for deletion; in most cases I suspected these would be noncontentious. [checks] Three have been removed; it's about the rate I expected. Hope that explains matters.

There's quite a few more whose encyclopedic significance I would debate that I didn't add; these would be AFD fodder if I had the enthusiasm for it, but as it is I've just left them. Shimgray | talk | 16:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, there are very few ways to accomplish this - it's a great failing, but the problem exists, and we're stuck with it. I could...

a) prod it, which is a sledgehammer but solves the problem

b) remove the offending material and demand a cite, but this then leaves us with an article (in most cases) saying "So-and-so (1958 – 2004) existed", and nothing else, at which point the article falls under speedy-deletion criteria anyway.

In a couple of cases, where sources were provided for the bit that said "this guy is a famous X" but not for the part that says "and he molests hamsters", I took the latter out and requested sourcing - prodding here would have been silly, so I didn't.

The important issue is that if sources are not provided, we should not have that article; there really isn't a way to do this except slap a note on saying "if this isn't fixed, it's going to have to go, and if it isn't fixed in a week, too late". There's some value to saying that it needs to be up for longer, but the problem is that where we have no evidence for the claims, that's the same as saying "we should leave this libel up a bit longer because they haven't complained yet". Better no article than an unsourced one or one with no content, and it does work. Shimgray | talk | 16:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Verify and citeneeded don't work. They sit there gathering dust, and we have the material left up; they're useful if someone wants to work on the article specifically, or as a warning to the reader, but they don't cause us to fix the problem with anything even approaching urgency, which is what's needed in cases like this. This probably says it clearer than I've managed... if it isn't sourced, and it's significant and potentially damaging, we should get rid of it first and then source and replace it later. I'm sorry if this seems agressive or impatient, but prod is not difficult to overturn (go to Deletion Review and say "oops, missed this article, can we restore it?", it's back) and there's only so long we ought to put up with bad articles for. Shimgray | talk | 17:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not that things don't work fast enough for me; they don't work fast enough for the encyclopedia. If a process is not functioning properly, we're not to be held slaves to that process; I honestly don't think that marking these things for cleanup and sourcing and then forgetting about them will help, and better something is done than nothing.

I fear we're talking at cross-purposes here, and I don't think either of us is going to convince the other, but I must stress again that deletion isn't permanent (overturning a prod takes a few minutes of process). I've brought this up on the mailing list, but it might be an idea to take it to the village pump or somewhere - it is a burning issue that needs discussed. Shimgray | talk | 20:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I nominated David Asimov for deletion.Rich 09:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMA request

Regarding [1]

The second link in the request probably states the whole situation more clearly than I can, however, I will summarize as best I can: CovenantD was blocked by Essjay for alleged personal attacks and insults, where I feel none occured. Further, the block happened without warning, and extremely hastily, in punitive intent, all against blocking policy. When I attempted to get clarity on this blocking and any valid reasons for it, my request resulted in the stonewalling of my request for policy-following reasons, and further insulting of CovenantD. The whole process was derailed and frustrating.

What I would like out of this: Either have it clearly shown that the block was done within policy, or have the admins involved in the block told clearly that their actions were outside policy. Ideally the latter would result in apologies, but I'll leave that up to the people directly involved.

Personal note: I don't think this should be ignored, and will attempt to give what time I can, however I have a colic-y 6 week old baby here to deal with as well. Please give me a little leeway in response time.

Thanks, --Kickstart70-T-C 02:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kickstart70, I'm Steve Caruso from the Association of Members' Advocates. I'm sorry to hear your problems with accusations of personal attacks. I'm writing to inform you that we have recieved your request, and that we are currently in the process of finding you a suitable Advocate. You should be hearing from us soon. In the meantime, be sure to read through the AMA pages here at Wikipedia to get more aquainted with the process of Advocacy and what to expect. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page. :-) As a soon-to-be father, myself, I can understand how a baby can be a handful, so don't worry. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 14:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have accepted your case. Let me read through it, and make some inquiries. I have opened User_talk:Jossi/AMA_Kickstart70 so that we can communicate there. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kickstart70, my comments on this case are at User_talk:Jossi/AMA_Kickstart70#Moving_forward ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richmond

Hey, thank you for your contributions to the article Richmond. I noticed you left a comment on the talk page and I thought I'd give you a few tips. New comments are usually left at the bottom of the page rather than the top. Creating a new header is a good to divide the various dicussions. You can create a new header by using == and then using another two == on the other side of your text. For example:
==Your New Title==
What you want to discuss / comment
Mkdw^talk 23:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you are referencing me? I've left no comment on Richmond. Plus, I'm very conversant on the structures you've outlined. --Kickstart70-T-C 22:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)