User talk:KnightLago/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome to Wikipedia! 2 Florida Atlantic 3 Credit where credit is due 4 Thomas Maloney 5 FidoCent 6 Moogle Mafia 7 Amend AfD 8 Patent nonsense 9 Shula Bowl 10 New userboxes 11 wakesurfing 12 User FAU 13 Straw Poll 14 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 15 Georgia Supreme Court 16 "Vandalism" 17 DRJHS 18 Stono Bridge 19 The Game (game) s-protect 20 Stono Bridge 21 Working together to rebuild the Stono Bridge 22 Desert Ridge Junior High School DRV 23 Recent Buffyverse nominations 24 Jesse Samek 25 Image:BofB poster.jpeg listed for deletion 26 AFD and Merge/Redirect 27 eliot kleinberg edit 28 Image:0 dmica.jpg 29 Orphaned fair use image (Image:FAU cysnf0tyo6fi5lqjn6p7.gif) 30 Orphaned fair use image (Image:FAU Seal Small.jpg)

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear KnightLago/Archive 1: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

• Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Community Portal
• Frequently Asked Questions
• How to edit a page
• How to revert to a previous version of a page
• Tutorial
• Copyrights
• Shortcuts

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! Rockpocket (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi! You are very welcome - happy editing! Rockpocket (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Florida Atlantic

I see your point. Every school does have nicknames. But sometimes these nicknames become part of the common parlance regardign a school and at this point they become notable. The fact is, nicknames are an important part of the lore of institutions of higher learning. College is not just about majors, buildings and faculty, it is also about a sense of institutional identity, about campus lore. Some of this lore is negative and some is positive. Either way, this lore is an important defining characteristic of any institution. As a Floridian and a person familiar with FAU, I can tell you (as I suspect you know) that this nickname is extremely widespread. In terms of widespread usage, it seems undoubtedly notable. Although the column may be imperfect and may be biased, it is a worthwhile source because it features a well known columnist (and former Sourth Floridian) writing for what many in the know consider to be Florida'a most repected newspaper (the state's only remaining major independent newspaper) using this nickname. The fact that it would be used by such a person in such a publication, regardless of context, speaks to notability, which is the core criterion for inclusion in wikipedia. So, in short, this should stay because it is extremely well known in Florida and the source should be viewed merely as verification of this widespread usage / notability. Interestingstuffadder 13:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Credit where credit is due

Thanks for giving me credit for adding positive content to the FAU article... Interestingstuffadder 22:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Maloney

Hi there; I still think that the Thomas Maloney article, which is clearly a non-notable biography, warrants a speedy delete. I note that you removed my speedy delete tag; I have not re-inserted it because that's playground childish, but really you should leave it in position until an admin can consider it. Edit wars are silly, and we should not generate them.--Anthony.bradbury 00:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair comment, and obviously I have not altered anything that you have done: but I would say that a simple assertion of notability made within an article is not of itself a proof thereof. I can detect no real evidence of notability here except that the editor says that he is notable. Anyone can say that.--Anthony.bradbury 00:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I know absolutely nothing about igloos. Let us just leave it alone and see what happens.--Anthony.bradbury 01:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FidoCent

I went ahead and speedy deleted the FidoCent article as it clearly fails WP:CSD:A7 (no assertion of notability) and could also be considered to fail CSD:G1 (patent nonsense). Thanks for catching this one. Best, Gwernol 14:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moogle Mafia

You proposed said article for deletion for being a dictionary entry. It doesnt look like one to me.68.109.11.36 16:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amend AfD

I'm merging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SteakandCheese into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SteakandCheese.com. Same article, only without .com has a dozen external links inline. I don't think you'd have any objection to this. Kevin_b_er 19:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patent nonsense

I've been running speedy deletion duty, and I've noticed that you've tagged a few articles as patent nonsense that really don't quite fit that category. As per WP:CSD: This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes.. As much as I would love to speedy alot of that stuff, it really needs to by sent to VfD some of the time (such as in the case of Starving Jesus). Sorry about that. – ClockworkSoul 03:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure: that's what I do. :) – ClockworkSoul 03:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shula Bowl

I've notice you been working on the Shula Bowl article and like the changes you've made. I've updated the page to have each logo (w/o borders) appear on each side of the table. I think it looks better and wanted to know if you felt it was a better look. Well keep up the good work. Cheers! Evill72 03:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. Evill72 01:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New userboxes

Per the terms of the German userbox solution new userboxes should not be created in template space. Please read up on the current practices. That page has instructions on how to properly create userfied userboxes. --Cyde Weys 20:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wakesurfing

Hi KnightLago.

First I want to say that I'm new to wikipedia - as I'm sure you can tell. I've obviously got some issues with posting images / copyright knowledge. For that I'm sorry and I'll work to increase my knowledge.

I see you redirected the wakesurfing page to wakeboarding. I'm sorry, I wasn't completely done with the wakesurfing page. Thought I would post it, thinking it was good enough to post, and that others would build upon it as well. I guess I was incorrect in posting prior to thinking it was 100% complete.

Wakeboarding is a completely different sport than wakesurfing.

You probably looked at the wakesurfing page and saw that there were similar terms used among the sports. They use similar lingo, but are completely different.

During wakeboarding a rider holds onto a rope the entire time. While wakesurfing the rider doesn't hold a rope at all. As mentioned in my page, a rider rides the wake behind a boat just as someone rides a wave at a beach.

Also, a wakeboard has bindings which keep a wakeboarder completely bound to his board. In wakesurfing, just as in regular surfing, there are no bindings and a rider moves all over the top of the board.

There are competitions specific to wakeboarding and competitions specific to wakesurfing.

The only thing the two sports share is that they are done behind a boat.

The images I posted were of my friends, I realize they don't contain the correct copyright marks. Frankly, it's very confusing, I tried my best. I'm happy to get them to post them, or to have them say it's OK for me to post them.

Now that my posting has been marked as questionable though, I'm wondering if my uploading will ever be trusted again?

A response would be appreciated.

chathamsolutions Chathamsolutions 01:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User FAU

Please be aware that User:Cyde deleted your FAU userbox template inappopriately. I have placed the following message on his talk page. You should also request that he (or preferably another admin) restore your template.

This is not "per GUS" as you claim. The section of GUS that states "no new userboxes in templates" is in between << double brackets >> which according to GUS itself should not be implemented until there is consensus. As you can see from the Straw poll, there is not consensus that education userboxes should not be in template, therefore speedy deleting new education userboxes cannot be done "per GUS." I kindly request that you respect GUS, reinstate this template and not SD new userbox templates in categories that do not have at least straw poll consensus. --NThurston 14:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Per the strawpoll, education userboxes are probably going to end up on Template space. For consistency, I propose to move the FAU UBX back to Template, unless you have some major objection. Feel free to do it yourself, or if I don't hear back in a few days, I will take care of it. --NThurston 18:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw Poll

• WP:GUSP --NThurston 22:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs WWE RAW (video game) Ron Zook Eliseo Quintanilla Growing Up Gotti Carolina Mudcats State Road 808 (Florida) Florent Pietrus State Road 809 (Florida) Cold case Kostas Vassiliadis Fenway-Kenmore State Road 800 (Florida) Sam Clancy, Jr. Angela's Ashes (film) Roger Dean Stadium Independence Middle School Jupiter Hammerheads South Florida Fairgrounds Expo Center Palm Beach Cardinals

Cleanup Forest Hill Community High School State Road 377 (Florida) Frank Gotti Merge Stanley Jones Hairspray (film) Morikami Museum and Japanese Gardens Add Sources Kraze and Krush Stadium Busta Rhymes Jason Reece Wikify COBIT Knoxville Zoo Delegation Expand Sun-Sentinel State Road 60 (Florida) Tourism in the United States

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Georgia Supreme Court

I think that the observations you made on Talk:Georgia Supreme Court are correct and I agree with your proposal.--Tlmclain | Talk 15:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As per Tlmclain, I agree with you proposed renames and just left "support" notes on the talk pages for both articles. --Roswell native 17:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Vandalism"

I'll thank you to be more careful about accusations of vandalism in the future. Remember to assume good faith. It may or may not also interest you to know that I've placed the article up for deletion, since you've declined a redirect. If so, your comments would be welcome in an effort to reach consensus. Shimeru 04:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DRJHS

Thanks you you adding more info to the article, but "The school is most notable for having received an "Excelling" rating from the Arizona Department of Education, signifying that the school is meeting all requirements of No Child Left Behind Act." is wrong. NCLB and the Excelling rating are two different things. Meeting the NCLB requirements is quite easy but the AZ Learns rank of "Excelling" (this is the highest rank) is much harder to get. BJ^Talk 19:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What you have in the article is correct and much nicer but just wanted to clarify what I was saying. We are talking about two different systems. NCLB which is federal is a meet or fail system, if you fail your school loses federal funding. AZ Learns is a state ranking system that has 4 or 5 levels, if you school is failing it is in danger of getting closed. BJ^Talk 21:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stono Bridge

Nice rewrite!--Kevin Murray 06:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Game (game) s-protect

I guess this depends on the definition of 'pre-emptive'. I would argue that if we're assuming good faith and we believe that semi-protection shows disrupters that they cannot game (lol) the system, then the previous semi will have shown that they'd be wasting their time trying to disrupt. I would argue, then, that the previous afd's should be discounted and that protection would be pre-emptive on this page. Obviosuly, I can see how previous admins would have interpreted vandalism on past AfD's meaning that semi-protection on subsequent AfD's was not pre-emptive; if they were doing it without this justification (which I disagree with but would accept as an explanation), they were protecting pre-emptively and violating policy.

Obviously, given the past history, more than a few of obviously sockpuppet/first time voters and semi-protection would be resonable. I reckon we have four or five who could come into this, though the only reason to suspect that they do is the subject's past history. I think semi-protection may prove appropriate in a day or two if this appears to be a continuing trend. I wouldn't revert or complain about other admins protecting this page, by the way.

Additionally, any decent admin looking at this when closing the debate should take into account the fact that this isn't a vote and that a large number of "newbie" keep comments v well reasoned and policy-supported delete comments from respected users should still result in a deletion. --Robdurbar 18:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stono Bridge

Hello, you are very polite and I appreciate that. But I will be a bit blunt, to save time. I rewrote that article a couple of days ago to save it from deletion. What I found there today was a mess of redundancy and superfluous wording, some of it appeared to be verbatim from sources. I spent a long time today trying to keep the essence of what you had added, put back in some of my prior work and trim the fat and redundancy. I'm offended that you would revert all of that work.

I'd like to work with you on the project, but not through reversions. Let's talk.

--Kevin Murray 06:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Working together to rebuild the Stono Bridge

Thanks for your understanding. I think that most of the variances between our approaches come from differing opinions on the overall goal of this article. I think that you are approaching this as an historical essay, where I see this as a very short piece about a marginally notable subject. Which is more encyclopedic? Clearly there will be different perspectives.

I think that we also differ in writing styles. It seems that you construct your paragraphs to be absolutely complete within themselves, and your sentences are similar. In a short article I feel that the sentences support each other, and since this article has a very narrow subject matter, the paragraphs do to. For example you tend to restate nouns such as: “the bridge” the old bridge” the “Gelegotis Bridge.” frequently. Alternatively I have a tendency to substitute pronouns because the article is only about the bridge.

I think that we can also trim some wordiness, which I think came for the sources. For example:

• allows faster-moving vehicular traffic to continue over the river

can be

• allows traffic to move faster

We already know what type of traffic and where it is going.

From my perspective, I think that less is more, as too long of an article can hide the pertinent details from a reader who is quickly seeking the bare facts. In an essay or major article I agree with your premise that there should be a leading summary-paragraph, but in this case what I perceive as the entire article, would be just the introductory paragraph for an essay. Short and to the point!

Am I right? Who knows? There are many cases where the Wikipedia guidelines are conflicting; in one area these stress brevity and in another these imply styles which compete with brevity. It is up to the editors to make the judgment of which is more pertinent case-by-case. There is no absolute right or wrong.

My rationale is:

• Short introductory paragraph conveying the basic facts
• move right into the history for two reasons (1) introduce the history close to the beginning of the article to support notability (2) putting the discussion of the history before the details of the new bridge allows the reader to benefit from the historical information when reading about the new bridge.
• provide crisp pertinent details about the new bridge in the final paragraphs.
• provide section headers which guide the readers to their areas of interest.

Today I tried to address some of your concerns at the article:

• I have rewritten the introduction to reference history significance, and tried to improve the flow by rearranging the sentences.
• I have eliminated the external links to which you objected -- they are of little importance except when the artice was at risk
• I included the information about the bridge construction and delays, which I previously deleted.

• Later in the day I did some more research to support the information on the golf cart tunnel. In the process I found some other infromation. Once there is an agreement as to the form and content, I suggest that we move the salient items to footnotes.

Another issue is the information about the namesake. You removed that from my article. I don't see this as a major issue, but I thought it addded a bit of human interest.

I look forward to working with you.

--Kevin Murray 19:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please give the reader some credit that they will understand that cars go on top and boats go under a bridge. vehicular sounds officous like a police report -- someone trying to sound important. Less is more in superior writting!

--Kevin Murray 19:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Outstanding -- looks great! Will anyone ever read it? On to the next project.

PS: One other contributors to the AfD discussion suggested that the article be moved to Stono Bridge and redirected from the other names. I don't really care, but I told him we would consider it when the editing was complete.

--Kevin Murray 21:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desert Ridge Junior High School DRV

I'm not sure what you're talking about with the DRV opening before the AfD was closed. The AfD was closed at 20:49 on the 29th, and I opened the DRV at 11:22 on the 30th. -- Kicking222 21:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No big deal. It's an honest mistake that everyone (especially myself) makes. Though we disagree on the article's status, your opinion was, aside from the minor time issue, still completely valid. -- Kicking222 00:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Buffyverse nominations

Since you've nominated so many articles with similar reasons in different AfDs, and it seems to me that most of the responses are getting quite redundant, I thought I'd bring up some of it here. First off, your nomination reasons were incorrect. As far as I know, there is no Wikipedia policy against locations in fictional universes having an article, whether it be on a television show or in a book. If there were, we'd have to delete literally thousands of articles. I can understand that there are trivial locations that deserve at most a mention in the show's main article, or an individual episode's article, but all of the entries you proposed were places involved in many episodes. As such, they are possibly important enough to have an article on your own. Calling them fancruft though, certainly doesn't help.

Your concerns about notability are closer to the point, but you could have addressed that with {{importance}} instead of going to deletion. A similar resource could have been used with regards to lack of sources and the {{unreferenced}} tag. Or you could have expressed your concerns on the Buffy Wikiproject. As I see it, all of your issues are clean-up problems, with the most being done being a merge to a single article on locations for the respective series. There was little reason to take it to AFD, and plenty of reason to take other steps first, as that would have given folks more of a chance to take action, and shown some good faith on your part.

I would also recommend only nominating one article to test the waters first. Then act further depending on the results. While mass nominations can be a bad idea, so can multiple similar or identical nominations on the same subject in short order, without even testing the waters. Basically, while I do not think you intended to cause harm, I think you may wish to consider taking different steps in the future. I know I feel some serious concerns about the situation, and I'm worried it will get worse. Mister.Manticore 16:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: Hard feelings? No, and I do agree that the White Room was lacking substance, but given the age of the article, I would have suggested messaging the creator first, to see if they were planning on expanding it. Or using a tag like Bwithh did before your nomination. You nominated it within an hour of its creation. put an importance tag on it, so the creators didn't even have time to respond. Now I personally think that it should be a section in the Wolfram and Hart article, and would have gone with a merge tag myself. Possibly would have gone straight to a redirect, and edited the White Room Disambig page. Mister.Manticore 17:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesse Samek

Hey...i found a link where someone else has mentioned Camp Samek, but I have a feeling that "the government", even though I work for it, has gotten rid of sites that dealt with Camp Samek. Now here is a link if you search the page, you'll see someone has mentioned about Camp Samek being at Kandahar Airfield. I was there and have pictures but to not compromise where Camp Samek is at Kandahar Airfield I am advised not to post pictures on the net. --DJREJECTED 04:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no pamphlet, there use to be, but as of September 2006 (which I found out more research from speaking with Air Force personnel that I work with) the base (Camp Samek) became defunct due to the International Security Assistance Force taking over Kandahar Air Field. Air Force personnel are still there but there is no such thing as Camp Samek anymore.

--DJREJECTED 16:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BofB poster.jpeg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BofB poster.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Thank you. — Nv8200p talk 22:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD and Merge/Redirect

For your information, a keep decision in an AFD does not prevent a merge or a redirect. Those are separate editorial decisions to be made in the normal editing process, and discussed on the relevant articles talk page. GRBerry 18:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] eliot kleinberg edit

hey do you know my dad? I noticed you were from south florida, do you work for the post? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twirk88 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Image:0 dmica.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:0 dmica.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 17:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:FAU cysnf0tyo6fi5lqjn6p7.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:FAU cysnf0tyo6fi5lqjn6p7.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 17:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:FAU Seal Small.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:FAU Seal Small.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 18:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)