User talk:Black Kite/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] re Theocracy

I have looked over that before and these are the answers I have come up with.

Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources.

Well they started out as a one man project (which is very rare for and unheard of for prog/power which I feel adds to it's notability) and have only become a full band recentley, they have played several shows in their area, including the ProgPower Fest which is an international show. I take it they are staying in that area for now as they are putting the finishing touches on the new album.

Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

Well they currently have one full length release and are just about to release a second, I have read that the 3rd album already has most of the material written and I have no idea if the record label they were on for the first album is considered major enough as that sentence is rather vague.

Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.

Not that I know of.

Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Now this is where I definatley feel I have made my biggest case for them meeting WP:MUSIC. I do believe they are headlining most of the shows they have been playing, and are considered to be one of the leaders in their style, genre, scene etc... hence why they were added to the progpower festival, and have appeared on a magazine cover and if you do google for reviews most of them are pretty favorable although I don't think reviews are considered to be a reliable enough source, but when enough of them are out there I think it at the very least helps to verify the information.

When I brought up the common sense thing I was doing so to show that you need to put bands and stuff into perspective. For what Theocracy is, and where they are in their career I don't see how you can really say they aren't notable, except by not really puting into perspective what they are and by following WP:MUSIC to the letter which I still think I have a case for them just barely meeting it in spite of the fact that the odds are stacked against them. I am glad I am not the only one who sees that there is a problem with this guidline as it generally only favors comercial music.--E tac 09:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Hollows

I respect your points but you fail to understand (which is surprising given that you are from England) how few women in the UK are knighted as DBE. Since the beginning of the 20th century I think the number is fewer than 200. I don't agree with all those selected and feel that mnay have been overlooked, but that's neither here nor there as the P.M. makes the decision not me.

Nonetheless, the fact that Sharon Hollows was knighted at 42 for having turned around one of the worst schools in Britain is notable.

I intend to vigorously defend against your nomination, because that would set a precedent as you are well aware and I do not intend to have all my hard work go for naught.

Yours, Veronica Mars fanatic 20:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see my reply on your talk page EliminatorJR 14:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi. I never intended to put "advertising" in Hollows' page and I am sorry if I did so in error.

Btw: There is no page for Sir Kevin Satchwell?? Veronica Mars fanatic 15:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on my user page

Thanks for reverting it and letting me know about it. I've updated the userbox. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 14:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Squatters Rights.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Squatters Rights.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One minute after I created a stub you tagged it for speedy? Re: Rosalina (The Naked Brothers Band)

The subject says it all. You haven't given me much of a chance. And how long does a stub have to be to be safe from you? Chris the speller 23:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I know what it's like to be driving too fast for my headlight beams, as when using the live spellcheck tool, and running through an "inuse" template. Yes, please remove the speedy tag for now. Chris the speller 23:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Done.EliminatorJR 23:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comfy sack

I added a reference to Comfy sack from a newsletter published by the Children's Aid Society of London, Ontario, Canada. --Eastmain 00:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Re Love sac -- I'm not sure this is nonnotable enough to be speediable. I removed all the unsourced negative info. from the article. Thanks, NawlinWiki 00:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Macau Business

Greetings,

I am trying to write a page about a three year old magazine in Macau "Macau Business" but for some reason you deleted it. Am not trying to advertise. I am, however, providing general and proven legal information about this magazine. I've read other articles about magazines and newspapers and found the content quite similar.

I am also new to Wiki, hence making a lot of changes as I learn.

Best regards, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macaubusiness (talk • contribs) 03:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Step-On_Magazine

No, go for it. I was being cautious by adding the notability tag, but speedy delete is totally fine. :) --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 22:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelly Jamison

I've edited the article, added some references, and she should now meet WP:BIO. Not due to being on the TV show per se, but due to the "primary notability criterion" - primary subject of multiple non-trivial works. Want to look again? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you! One more thing, though, could you go back and strike out your earlier Delete opinion, to make it clearer that you change your mind below? You can do that by putting <s></s> around it, so: <s>'''Delete'''</s>, and it will become Delete. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you even more. I'll leave you alone now! :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flashportal.com

I don't know why Flashportal.com is inappropriate, but as it has been deleted TWICE, I will not recreate it again. --User:Izzy259

Thanks! I only joined yesterday, so I needed the extra info. -- User:Izzy259

[edit] Robot Wars

List of minor Robots on Robot Wars - I didn't make that! -- User:Izzy259

Do you mean if I hyperlink a robot to that page, it will disappear? If that's what you mean which I think it is, should I re-create them, or will they come back? -- Izzy259

[edit] Wikifying the Robot Wars Articles

Thanks for doing that! It was really helpful. Chaos2 23:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Word to the wise

If you get an error message while tagging an article for speedy deletion, and it asks whether you want to re-create the article, hit no! It means the article was already deleted by an admin :) If you recreate it, it has to be deleted again, which is a pain (I've made the same mistake in the past). Cheers, and thanks for the help! Mak (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It was Dana greenlaw. Maybe there was a database edit-conflict type glitch. Sometimes people don't know about it. Anyway, thanks for helping tag. Mak (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Delete

If David then why not Michael? HokieRNB 01:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I have replied to your posting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party Advance minigames. Please take a look. Bowsy (review me!) 09:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thec article has had official sources added. Bowsy (review me!) 08:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, EliminatorJR! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 00:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming

Hi! Its Izzy259(Talk again. About List of Minor & Significant Robot Wars Contenders (Non-UK), and God Bless the Chils (The Simspons song), I would rename it but I don't know how to do that either, but I will learn. Sorry I keep calling you.

[edit] Belize

When I reverted Belize, I was going to put a warning on the IP's talk, but you got there first. I was wonderiing, could you please let me write them? Thank You. Hiddenhearts Sign Here! My Talk 00:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mumbai deletions

The section which is deleted is irrelevent and solely an author(s)'s viewpoint. The neutrality of the article is disputed. User seated at 59.183.13.217 shud first disscuss proposed changes.

  • Yeah, problem with VandalProof there - see your talk page.

spacejuncky 09:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment

Stop harassing me with "vandalism" warnings because you don't agree with my edits. - Skaraoke 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.

Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you.

  • Reverting edits that contravene Wikipedia guidelines (in this case WP:NPOV) is not harrassment. Neither is removing PROD tags on pages that are clearly sourced (take it to AfD). Please see my comments on your talk page. EliminatorJR Talk 22:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Comments

I always assume good faith.

With all due respect, I don't think that you did in this case, but I could be wrong. Sorry if we got off on the wrong foot, but it seemed to me like another example of someone on Wikipedia with a POV trying to protect a biased article from being made neutral by threatening another editor. (It does happen.)

I am an educator, and while I may not agree with critical pedagogy, to claim it is 'Marxist-inspired' is nonsensical.

I'm a graduate student in the School of Education at Stanford University, and with all due respect, I don't think that describing critical pedagogy as Marxist in "nonsensical."
I don't think that it's POV to think that the article that I edited was full of superfluous praise of CP. Is it really appropriate for an encyclopedia article to feature quotes from movies and music that have no direct association with the topic? I don't think so. Wikipedia policy states that it is better to not say anything about a subject than to convey false or inappropriate information. I believe that that's what I was doing with this article.
Speaking of articles, I just created one called School of Education. If you wouldn't mind, please take a look at it and make comments, additions, etc. - Skaraoke 23:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Regarding notability of Football (soccer) players

Hi, seeing you have been involved in previous Afd debates on the subject I invite you to contribute to this discussion to clarify certain issues about football player notability. I think clearer guidelines are needed to avoid repeated inappropriate nominations for deletion and time consuming discussions. Cheers! StephP 19:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. I'm in high school, and apparently some of my friends aren't as mature as one would hope out of our age group. And to think we'll be running the country in 20 years. Thank you. --Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 19:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I noticed they vandalized your page as well, and while I wasn't involved, they are my friends, and I apologize. --Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 19:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: ThepeoplefromNS

Yes, per the actions on his/her talk page, the block has been extended indefinitely.↔NMajdan•talk 20:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harrington

You know, that explains a heck of a lot. MSJapan 21:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indeed

The public libel by the Monkey King is a fine example of my refusal to knuckle under to petty tyrants abusing their authority. The police report backs me up, btw.Matthew Joseph Harrington 01:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to main article

There is a better way to link to main articles: {{main|XYZ opening}} . Bubba73 (talk), 13:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chess openings

Hi, I felt this personal message might be approriate, and I know you've offered to try to fix up these chess articles, but I've got to be honest, I'm dubious that you, or anybody else is going to make the effort to finish the job. I'm also concerned that most of the people saying to keep are completely missing the point of my objections, and this includes yourself. Describing an opening, even if you can find any number of references to support it is not encyclopedic content, and doesn't demosntrate the potential for more encyclopedic content. Including instructions on how to play, which I know you don't quite believe, but which I feel is so obviously endemic to these pages that I'm quite credulous that you don't recognize it, is not acceptable either.

And this is not something that I suddenly work up to, it's something I pressed action for months ago. It went nowhere. Users sat on their hands and dithered. Believe it or not, I hate having to use an AfD to get people to act, but I felt a shock to the system was appropriate. Unfortunately, you're the only one who has even begun to to something to improve the situation. And I do appreciate that, you are trying. So thanks for that much, and keep working at it.

BTW, if you really want a solution that keeps these pages somewhere, the only thing I can suggest is moving almost everything to the existing Chess Wikibook or to a new one on Chess openings. FrozenPurpleCube 16:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there is a lack of a desire to fix this problem, and instead I have gotten a sense of obstinacy and refusal to even see that there are legitimate concerns here. It's unfortunate, but it's very easy for a person who likes a subject can become blind to the problems, and even antagonistic to the best-meant attempts at a solution. Even those who admit there are problems have done nothing. But hey, if you want to start marking irregular chess openings or Sicilian variants for merge, I'll leave off those pages for AfDs in the future. Not that I think there's anything much to merge, believe it or not, most of the variants were created by a person who was almost certainly spamming for their website several months ago. FrozenPurpleCube 16:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I'm still concerned that the article represents a guide to a particular opening play, the definition and history is possibly enough to keep the article itself, but the coverage of the subvariants is still excessive and focused more on teaching and less on the importance of the subject itself. This is especially true with The Grünfeld with 4. Bf4 which says nothing about the use of the variant at all. FrozenPurpleCube 17:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baby Boomers

Just thought I would clarify how I even came to that page. I was looking at a WLH for Garry Kasparov, saw that list, said huh, is that right? Checked the list, checked Baby Boomer saw nothing to indicate that the term should be applied to people born in the Soviet Union, though frankly, I could say that might come from the lack of good world-wide perspective in that article. And while I would have removed any other suspect entries from the list, I realized that the whole page itself was wrong.. So I nominated it for deletion. I don't see how there is any problem with my conduct in that case. The page will be deleted because of fundamental problems with it, Kasparov being on the list is not going to make any kind of difference. FrozenPurpleCube 23:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides, if anything, I'm going to the Baby Boomers page and see what can be done to expand its content to cover the world better. FrozenPurpleCube 23:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the biggest reason might be if they didn't experience an actual baby boom. So far, the only thing I can find in the way of a reference is [1] which may be something, may not. However, the issue is for the Baby Boomer page, or the Post-World War II baby boom page. They are lacking in content for Eastern Europe. FrozenPurpleCube 23:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFM Sicilian Defence

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Sicilian Defence, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. 14:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tiffany adler

this article does not vilify adler in the least it rereports what has been stated about ms. adler in the media, those other crimes are irrelevant and a straw man argument, policy disagrees with you WP:BIO and WP:Notability please have a read, and read the coverage, discussion deletion discussion, and the article and its references.T ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 22:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tiffany adler

i hardly see how Wikipedia:Notability (people) doesnt apply and stop trying change the subject, we have an article on scott peterson and lacy peterson too theres lots of murderes, murders, and people who have been killed without articles, that is no reason for exclusion and is your personal opinion.T ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 03:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

Which article was the problem on? I had a larger signature on the "Chastity houses" AFD, and then reduced its size. Also, what browser are you using? I've been trying to duplicate the problem you mention, and it only seems to show up in IE6 with text size set below Medium. Let me know if the lines below show overlapping on your browser, and if they do, I will attempt to reduce the size further. (The problem is that if I use the normal text size, the C64-style light-blue-on-dark-blue color scheme is almost unreadable.)

Test line Test line Test line Test line
Crotalus
Test line Test line Test line Test line
Crotalus 16:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New signature

I've created a new signature (using a slightly different color scheme, similar to that of User:Sirex98), which hopefully will fix any problems with the above. Let me know how it looks on your browser. *** Crotalus *** 16:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Sicilian Defence.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 18:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Professional Information Security Association

Further information have been provided in regards to the association page. Please continue with the discussion. I'm waiting for further feedbacks from the contributors. Mailcpathetsang Talk 4:55 2007/04/25

Message moved to the bottom. Mailcpathetsang Talk 5:18 2007/04/25

[edit] Grunfeld

Is your merged article ready yet? Grünfeld 4.Bf4 is AfD. Bubba73 (talk), 20:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Then it is probably a good time to make the change, if you are sure that no information from the subarticles was lost. Grünfeld 4.Bf4 has been nominated for deletion. Bubba73 (talk), 01:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just thought I'd expand on why I considered your comment an accusation against me. Your comment starts off saying "This user" which instead of focusing on the article, focuses on me. If you truly wished to be neutral, you should have focused on the article itself. Not that I imagine there's any reason to keep the contents anyway. It's not sourced, and if there's some reason to include information on it in the main article, you're going to have to source it. FrozenPurpleCube 01:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if you didn't actually review any of the sources on the page, you may wish to consider what unsourced information you've added to the new Grunfeld defense page. They may not say everything now contained in this article. FrozenPurpleCube 01:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I see no in-line citations, and you didn't actually say you looked at those references which have themselves existed in the article for quite some time, so since you didn't add them, I can't know you looked at them yourself. Making an article with copies from other pages is often a problem when you don't consider that sort of thing. FrozenPurpleCube 02:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
If you don't look at the sources, it is certainly questionable to add the content, and this is also true for the other content in the GD article, such as the players who have used it recently (a statement that needs to be fixed to year anyway). As I've said before (including in this nomination), simply referencing that a given variant exists? Not convincing as a reason to keep on Wikipedia. There are thousands of openings that can be listed, named and documented as to moves. Getting beyond that is the problem. In any case, I see no reason to include a list of moves simply because some person seeking to spread their links on Wikipedia chose to include that opening. If you'd given one argument as to why that information should be merged, that'd be one thing, but you've not even done that. It's just a list of moves. Think about why you're including it. If it's just because the article was there...maybe you need to think about removing it. FrozenPurpleCube 03:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The article doesn't say "This is the second most popular variant" does it? And where's your source for your assertion? FrozenPurpleCube 03:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kiichi Gotoh deletion

Greetings! Otto4711 has a solution to removing the majority of the individual character pages, while still giving them a place with expanded information. The Kanuka page is already developed and should remain as it is, but I would agree to the deletion of the other character pages and the creation of a "List of Patlabor characters" page. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kiichi_Goto. Mintchocolatebear 19:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chess players

Do you think you and Epeefleche could sort out your differences on the chess articles without edit warring and being nasty? --Tony Sidaway 20:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right, and I apologise for the error. I agree that his edits are basically okay and he'll be an asset to the project if and when he gives up edit warring. --Tony Sidaway 13:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)