User talk:SubSeven
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
[edit] Article Cleanup
I appreciate your efforts in making the appearance of wikipedia articles better. You are good at wikimarkup, and your contributions have made several articles easier on the eyes. In particular, please continue to make tables look better... it seems alot of editors have a hard time with them, and you obviously have a telent for fixing them. Again, thanks, and GREAT JOB! Jerry lavoie 21:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Jerry. I appreciate the message. You are right about the tables. I don't like to see all the butchered ones out there. I will continue to take up the cause. :) SubSeven 03:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] World of Warcraft
Response posted at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment#Shortest_possible_time_anyone_have_gotten_to_level_60_in_World_of_Warcraft?. --Tunheim 07:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] .
Behave yourself and know your limits. You have no business to come and delete my contributions in the discussion place ok? Lots of people are contribution their emotions even and do not get deleted. Stop reverting me otherwise I will file a complain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArmenianNY (talk • contribs).
- Please, file a complaint, I encourage it. SubSeven 19:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Pride17.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pride17.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 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: 202.149.66.131
It appears that this IP address is being used strictly for mischief. It has been used to make two edits: the first to an article about a hip-hop performer that you've removed, and the second to place a sockpuppet template on my user page that I've removed. BobbyJRobby 16:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chris Webber
Hey there, I noticed that you removed something regarding the Pistons' record on the Chris Webber article because of the fact that it would need to be updated daily. I put something back in because the way it was written was misleading and made it sound like Webber's addition to the Pistons wasn't so hot, when on the contrary, it's widely seen as a genius move by league insiders.
I wrote it in such a way that it shouldn't have to be updated constantly, but if you have any input, let me know. - Stick Fig 18:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Much better! SubSeven 19:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Adding external links to the article on "fantasy baseball"
I've just added two external links to the "fantasy baseball" article and then noticed that I already seem to have a history on the topic, which I wasn't aware of. Short and sweet, I don't understand why I may not add a resource to an article that most people regard as one of the leading authorities in the field (to me, the poster's affiliation doesn't change the quality of a link). I run several other sites which are mediocre and would never get the idea to post them at Wikipedia (yes, that would be spam), but in this case I don't understand why I have received a spam warning from you.
And sorry for the readdition, I didn't mean to be respectless - if I had read the message for me right away, I wouldn't have done that (and if my links get deleted again I won't readd them).
Menyak 00:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi there. I don't know which link was yours, as I see nothing I reverted by a user named Menyak. Maybe you weren't logged in at the time. Anyway, Wikipedia guidelines state that editors should not introduce links to web sites that they maintain/work for. In these cases you should nominate the site for inclusion on the article's talk page (and be prepared to prove that it is indeed a leading authority). You can read the guideline here: WP:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest and here is a link with further reading on the problems of Conflict of Interest within Wikipedia: WP:COI. SubSeven 02:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. How can one prove that a site is a leading authority? Take Wikipedia - probably one of the greatest resources on the Net, but if you ask the wrong people you will likely hear something different.
Menyak 08:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I thought you had the answer for that :) since you mentioned your site is a leading authority. Generally, to prove that, you want a reliable, independent source that you can cite as saying so. That isn't an absolute requirement for an external link, (to be a leading authority that is, I just mentioned it because you brought it up) but in your case it would help a lot to justify your link. The external links guidelines page explains it better than I can. SubSeven 09:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, proving the obvious can often be surprisingly difficult. ;) I mean I can provide scans from Henry Lee's "Fantasy Baseball Strategy" or even "Penthouse Magazine" - just not sure if the "hey it's been in the papers" approach is a way to confirm true authority (or simply a route to come accross as spammy). Normally I'd just trust that enough fantasy baseball experts will come accross the article over time so it will eventually be added, on the other hand this article has been flooded with links last year, so if as a result all external links additions are simply shot down, I probably don't have to hold my breath.
Menyak 09:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your comment on the missing warning templates for deleting vandalism warnings
I think there are a lot of vandal fighters who don't understand why the warning templates were deleted. Further, I can't seem to find the evidence that there was a consensus to delete them. On the contrary, I see almost unanimous support to keep them. Check out this. I would fully support a reopening of the debate on the topic. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Bejeweled" music trivium
I don't know whjy you keep reverting this one -- it's genuine (as anyone knows who's played Bejeweled), and the latest reference thereto was carefully worded so as to fit the family-friendly nature of Wikipedia (unlike an edit to it done by someone, which I promptly reverted)... 86.144.203.58 17:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's not due to any family-friendlyness or lack thereof, it's just that it's lame trivia that could never be properly cited. (see WP:ATT) SubSeven 19:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Frank Mir
Hi I'm the user Takedashingen620, and I was wondering what this meant -"Revert to revision 113901045 dated 2007-03-09 19:56:42 by Takedashingen620 using popups"- its what you put for the edit summary when you edited the Frank Mir page, was there a problem?
Thanks, Jesse.
March 10, 2007.
- It means that someone vandalized the page, so I rolled back to your edit, which was the last 'good' version of the article. --SubSeven 03:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you.
