User talk:DarkSaber2k/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

MMORTS.COM

I read you added a bogus article at www.mmorts.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Starships%21) I was just curious if it is still there?  :) In any case, the "review" of starships appearing on my site was removed the day it was first posted because it was not meeting our editorial standards (poorly written, off topic.) It turns out we had a bug in our new CMS which allowed external links to still work on moderated content even though all references to the article were removed from our site. We've fixed that bug and I think I will also update the reviews section to make it so reviews need to be moderated before being publically visible to prevent this sort of issue in the future. admin at mmorts.com

Manchester Confidential

On what grounds are you proposing to delete the well-researched, corroborated article on Manchester Confidential? This is a well-known website in the ares with many popular local writers contributing. And I'm not the real Gordo -- this is just a random user name. Gordo of the Press Club 13:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If your not the real Gordo, he's gonna be mighty pissed that your claming to be the 'one and only Gordo' isn't he. DarkSaber2k 09:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
A) For the reasons it says on your talk page (and the same reasons it was previously deleted).

B) I never said or implied you were Gordo, why so defensive? Trying to hide something?
C) IF you aren't Gordo, then using his name was an exceedingly poorly thought out decision.
DarkSaber2k 13:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking down this talk page, you seem to have something of a penchant for deleting pages. May I respectfully suggest you do some work instead? Gordo of the Press Club 13:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
No. Try patroling new pages for article like yours. Your not the first person who's taken offence at being told their article is about a non-notable subject, as you can see for yourself. I don;t care what you think of my editing, because it's not for your benefit. DarkSaber2k 13:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
You, sir, are an incredibly brusque man. Why not try doing something meaningful to contribute to this site rather than simply removing others' work? And are there not guidelines for administrators along the lines of "don't be a rude pillock"? Gordo of the Press Club 13:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
ROFL, you actually think I'm an admin. If I was, I wouldn't have bothered tagging your p.o.s. article, I would have just deleted it. As it is, I have as much power as you in this matter. Every speedy delete has to actually be carried out by an ACTUAL admin, and they will remove the tag if THEY feel the speedy tag is inappropriate (which was not the case with your article yesterday according to the deletion logs.) It deserved deletion then, and it deserves deletion now.

DarkSaber2k 13:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday's article was a one-liner, which was deleted. Today's contains relevant information and sources. Yah-boo to you. Gordo of the Press Club 13:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources? Really? All I see is unreliable crap. You can keep deliberately ignoring all the relevent informatio0n being given to you, but the fact remains your wasting your time talking to me. The tag stays, the matter is now up to whichever ACTUAL admin comes along to review the page. DarkSaber2k 13:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no further wish to engage with you. Admins, including Mel Etitis further up this page, have pulled you up on your rudeness and haste to tag pages. Go away. Gordo of the Press Club 13:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Going away might be a little bit difficult, this IS my talk page if you hadn't realised. DarkSaber2k 13:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
How about we put this to the people? Put it for AfD, not speedy! Gordo of the Press Club 14:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice welcome, by the way

...if you're the first impression people get of Wikipedia, do you really think they're likely to stay? Perhaps that's what you want; a closed shop. Gordo of the Press Club 20:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm only like this with *very* special people. Would you like me to keep this conversation open while you spend another couple of hours trying to think insults up? If not I'll archive it. DarkSaber2k 20:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I note you took the time to shove all the previous complaints about over-zealous use of the speedy delete tag, some from administrators, into an archive once they were pointed out to you. Gordo of the Press Club 21:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually it was about the 3rd time someones tried to make me look bad by pointing to non-existent warnings (the example your pointing to was an informal warning, there are other processes for proper warnings, none of which have been applied), and they've been brought out of mothballs once already, for the sake of someone else who thought they had damning evidence in me doing a perfectly normal archive of my talk page. After all, they are archived, not deleted. And even if it was an official warning (like the 3 you've received in the space of one evening) one-off admin warnings are considered stale and invalid if 24 hours pass with no further incident. If you spent as much much time reading up on this stuff as you are on trying to insinuate things, you'd know what I'm talking about. Oh, and as for over-zealous, please consider that those complaints consist of about 1 in 100 actual articles I tag for deletion. After all, no one leaves a message saying 'Your tagging of that vanity article was spot on, nice job.' They just delete the article. That's the only confirmation needed. Finished yet, this is getting boring. (If your struggling, the last guy decided to move onto commenting about My Contributions at around this point.) DarkSaber2k 21:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
My point is that you're the least friendly person anyone could hope to encounter on here. Perhaps if you acted with a little more civility, you might get a little in return. I'm merely replying in the manner with which I'm spoken to. Gordo of the Press Club 10:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Why should I care how your speaking to me? I've had worse from smarter people. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but your the one told me to 'Go away' on my own talk page, and then promptly carried on engaging me in conversation.DarkSaber2k 10:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I got a job for you

Hey Dark, do something useful and sort this guy out: User:Muratsahin d. He keeps posting nonsense and strange religious stuff on non wikified pages pages, and then removes DB tags. He just created this too: VUSLAT. Thought this would be right up your street ;-) Bjrobinson 14:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Imam Iskender Ali MIHR
  • Hidayah
  • Mihr Foundation
  • Imam Iskender Ali MIHR
  • Reach Allah

I think they may all be delete candidates. And if one sees something that might need to be deleted... who should we call? Yes, you that's who. (Hey is that I've had worse from smarter people. about me? Ah your making me blush. Bjrobinson 14:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had a look, tagged one for a dicdef deletion, but religion (especially Muslim) is way outside my comfort zone. You'd better taking this to a wikiproject rather than a rogue deliteist. DarkSaber2k 14:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Typical... you disappoint me. By the way I found this: WP:DBN. *cough*. Bjrobinson 14:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but that's a guideline, not a policy. Why you trying to drag this up again? And as for disappointing you, what did you expect? You've come to someone you know from his scouring of online browser game articles, and expect him to know what he's talking about with regards to the Muslim religion? Doesn't quite compute to me. I'm in no mood for being involved in another argument though, so I'm just going to be on my way if that was all. DarkSaber2k 14:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
This is harder than it looks... is there a list of tags for db tags? Bjrobinson 14:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Aye, WP:SPEEDY should have all you need. And if he's removing speedy tags from articles, that IS something I can do something about. DarkSaber2k 14:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh crap. Please ignore me. Some of those shouldn't be deleted :-S I'm in way over my head here! Bjrobinson 14:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(reset) Sorry about the confusion, but Reach Allah, [[Imam Iskender Ali MIHR], VUSLAT, Mihr Foundation did need deleting, the others did not and are still there. So its all good. So you only delete computer music and games then huh? Forewarn 17:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh oops, that was my colleagues user name, he's new, I was showing him about Bjrobinson

Biting the newcomers

Hello! I've been appreciating your good work alongside me on keeping the non-notable junk out of Wikipedia, but you're coming across as a bit too bitey on User talk:CatalinStroescu - they might be a more confusedly aggressive newbie than most, but jumping straight to a Level-4im, and doling out uw-upv1 when they were obviously just trying to leave you a message without understanding talk pages, seems a bit much.

Given that web games tend to have fiercely loyal player forums, hitting people with full-bore templates and assumptions of bad faith runs the risk of them going back and starting a confused "OMG, Wikipedia hates Randomquest!" thread (particularly if they're able to link to a talk page that has a "person in charge of Wikipedia" shouting at them), at which point we get a lot of minor and distributed vandalism, or tiresomely deaf Starships-style notability claims. There's certainly a time and a place for big, heavy threats and templates, but I think you've been jumping the gun a bit. --McGeddon 15:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The person went on a spiteful speedy tag rampage after having their crappy article deleted for the 5th time, which included an article obviosuly not connected with the web game of the same name. I think I was fully justifed in leaving the vandalism warnings, ESPECIALLY after seeing how many other warnings (incuding at leats 2 page blankings by the user) had been left by other editors. The upv warning may have been a bit much, but the user contributions show that they know full well where the appropriate place to leave talk messages was. The other was right on the button I think. I also didn't assume bad faith until after I'd read the talk page stuff and checked the contributions. After that I though there was sufficient evidence of malice. (Which there was, as I stated about their inappropriate speedy rampage.)DarkSaber2k 15:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You politely warned them at 15:10, and they stopped, having rampaged through only three articles. Giving them a full-strength warning when you noticed their (earlier) Abderus edit five minutes later just seemed a bit redundant, and a very unexplanatory and fierce warning to give.
My good-faith assumption is that Catalin believed speedy-deletion tags were the only way to flag articles as being unencyclopaedic, and I'd just said to them on the Fantager talk page (after they'd trumpeted that there were other games without reliable sources, but they didn't see them being deleted) that yes, if other articles lacked sources then they should be nominated for deletion through proper channels. They're a bit confused and angry, but still acting nearer good faith than bad.
Just thought I'd say something, anyway. --McGeddon 16:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Battrick

Notability has already been proved for this article here|, I am removing your tag. Have a nice day. --JRA WestyQld2 22:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A No Consensus result in an AfD is not proof of notability. The article still does not contain anything to support a claim of notability, despite having been through one AfD. DarkSaber2k 22:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It contains an interview with an online broadcaster, which meets notability standards. I don't see how it can fail WP:WEB. Also not noted on the page, but I'm sure I could find it, are various references in English and Australian newspapers to it's creator Allan Fairlie-Clark and Battrick. --JRA WestyQld2 10:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Interviews do not meet notability standards layed out by the reliable source guidelines. As for the other sources, they would have to be viewed before there suitability could be evaluated. I'm not saying they aren't suitable, I'm reserving judgement until they appear. But until they do, please do not remove the tags. DarkSaber2k 10:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Ooops, my bad. I can't actually find where it says interviews are not suitable, so I might be mixing up my policies and guidelines here! DarkSaber2k 10:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, definitly can't find where I was getting 'Interviews are not reliable' from, so as long as those other newspaper sources turn up, then the article should be A-OK for removing the tags. DarkSaber2k 10:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Check criteria 3 of WP:WEB and it states an online broadcaster is a notable criteria. I can roll up my sleeves and look for a newspaper reference, but I don't think it is really worth going on a technicality as trivial like interviews aren't mentioned as suitable. --JRA WestyQld2 10:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent) Nono, I'm saying the interview is suitable. I was under the mistaken impression that I'd read they wern't somewhere. The 3rd criteria actually says The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster This is a criteria I always have trouble actually interpreting, so I tend to avoid using it as a reason for deletion or inclusion. What I'm basically saying is that I'm assuming good faith on Battricks notability provided a couple more sources are provided within the article. DarkSaber2k 10:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hah ok, I'll try dig up some archive articles from when it was mentioned before The Ashes. Cheers! --JRA WestyQld2 10:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there DarkSaber2k

Hi there DarkSaber2k,

My Apologies for the page "Ntiro Technologies" (company where I work) submitted to WikiPedia, I did not realise that it would be considdered advertising or spam, This was my first page after registering with WikiPedia and I just wanted to add a page to see how it looked on WikiPedia. You are welcome to delete the page (Admins will do so if I understand correctly) and I will double-check any future content before just publishing anything.

I think that it is awesome that anyone can contribute to WikiPedia and share good knowledge with the world, keep up the great work! :-)

Best Regards --Reinhard Rensburg 15:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, you post an article that consists of the company name, an address, two phone numbers, a website and a closing sentence that says Quote 'Wikipedia' on the phone to receive your discount!' and you seriously didn't think it would be viewed as advertising? DarkSaber2k 15:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi DarkSaber2k. No problem, it won't happen again. Regards, --41.244.29.55 19:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Legend of the Green Dragon

I'm a bit perplexed on how I can stop this one from being deleted. If you'd rather it weren't me that's fine, I can ask the players to do it (only about 200,000 of them world wide, should be easy) but I haven't a clue how you actually expect us to sort this problem out? The only "credible" media I know of who detailed the game was Slashdot, but I've searched and can't find their article which would have been circa 2002. Are you really suggesting that with so many players the wiki might not be true? Don't you think one of them would have corrected it by now? There are some 300+ server admins out there who run this game and I'm sure many of them have wandered by as well. Exactly how many websites need to have this code installed before it becomes legitimate and worthy of a wikipedia page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.236.165.70 (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Browser games fall under the sam inclusion guidelines as other websites (I've pasted the below for convenience):

Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content[1] is deemed notable based on the following criteria.

  1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
    • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[2] except for the following:
      • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[3]
      • Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
  2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[4]
  3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;[5] except for:
    • Trivial distribution such as hosting content on user-submitted sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, etc.)

The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article.

DarkSaber2k 12:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Team Tibet

I've removed the speedy deletion tag from the above article. While the subject might not be notable, the article does assert notability in a reasonable way. You may wish to list it at WP:AFD instead, to get a broader consensus on the article. Thanks for your time and your hard work reporting these articles - even though I'm not deleting this particular one, your efforts are very much appreciated. Kafziel Talk 16:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

advice needed

Please can you give me advice how i can keep my artical open, the artical is The Charity Trail, i don't understand why it is questioned to be deleated, i have changed it many times to fit the wikipedia criteria and i keep getting warnings and notices, what can i do about this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chris Lacey (talk • contribs) 09:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?. DarkSaber2k 09:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please help - Ironmongery Direct Ltd

Please help.

I don't understand why you keep blocking this page from being created?? It is not self promoting but merely stating facts about a company as is the case with hundreds of other companies on Wikipedia. What exactly am I supposed to be writing??

Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ironmongery (talk • contribs) 09:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?. DarkSaber2k 09:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Nanny opt out option

Re: this, you might want to see User:HagermanBot/OptOut for how to avoid the nanny. :-) Carcharoth 11:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wahay thanks! DarkSaber2k 11:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

EUO

You'll have to change that prod to an AfD; as I prod'd it yesterday and it was removed. Cheers, Marasmusine 10:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for speedy deletion

Why are you adding speedy deletion tags to some game articles? -Charleca 12:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The articles meet speedy delete criteria A7: Web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. DarkSaber2k 12:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Some of the articles do not meet that criteria. Tales of Pirates, for example, is an online game, not necessarily web content. If that meets the A7 criteria, we might as well delete ALL the articles for games played online. - Charleca 12:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)FYI, this is the 4th week of our ongoing clean-up of web and online game articles, and yes nearly all of them currently DO meet delete criteria. It's just some make a claim to notability. Some (such as Tales of Pirates) don't, meaning they possibly qualify for speedy deletion. If the web criteria doesn't apply to the article after all, then the Admin that comes along will remove the speedy tag and leave a comment as to why it doesn't meet speedy delete criteria. Can I help you with anything else? DarkSaber2k 12:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


Spirit of the law, A7 (I believe) is designed to get rid of personal blogs and such. For games and such (if they have a reasonable playerbase), a WP:PROD of WP:AFD would be more appropriate than a speedy. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 12:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Well then you might want to take this up with several of the admins who actually deleted some of the 40-odd online game articles that have been speedily deleted in the last month because they failed to assert notability. It might well be that this article does not in fact meet speedy criteria, but it's no different from most of those 40+ articles that also got speedy deleted. Regardless, the decision is with the admin that comes along. DarkSaber2k 12:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Rakion

Would you care to explain why it isn't notable? Quatreryukami 14:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The article contains no assertion of notability that would lead it to pass either WP:WEB or the more general WP:N and even if it claimed notability, it lacks reliable sources to verify the claims. DarkSaber2k 14:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I see. But as long as you don't go the AFD route, I won't complain. But while you are at it, why don't you tag Maple Story, Gunz, Gunbound and all those other games that have the same problems? I'm just sayin'....Quatreryukami 14:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:FISHING, that's why. And FYI, this is currently the 4th week of an ongoing web and online game article clean-up. The sources issue is causing a lot of 'great' (at least in the eyes of the contributors) articles to be deleted. Maple Story has been covered in independent third-party media, and actually supplies the sources to back that up, making the article perfectly OK as far as I'm concerned, as for Gunz and Gunbound, I've given them the same tags as Rakion, thanks for bringing them to my attention. DarkSaber2k 14:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey DarkSaber2k, if you have a problem with the notability of this subject why don't you be productive and help out the article instead of tagging every article you come upon. You seem to have spent the time to learn all of these technicalities, yet instead of contributing to articles and being constructive you've been attacking them for seemingly no reason at all. MrTrubak 22:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tag

Can you please direct me to the page where there is a policy discussion on the matter of spoiler tags. anthony 17:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. DarkSaber2k 17:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I see. Most people on that page seem to be opposed to making a policy. You're not suggesting that a failed policy regarding spoiler templates requires us to keep all spoiler templates in place, are you? anthony 01:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying the matter (on the entire page) is not yet finished, and as far as I'm concerned until it is closed one way or the other, we should be defaulting to standard practice, regardless of whether you personally think it's unencyclopedic. I've seen various editors remove various legitimate tags in the past as 'unencyclopedic', so when I see someone acting like that without an actual consensus calling the tags 'unencyclopedic', I see at as someone engaged in WP:POINT. And FYI, it doesn't say anything about this being 'failed' here: Wikipedia:Spoiler. DarkSaber2k 11:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Guitar Hero II edit

Pardon my asking, sir/ma'am, but why get rid of the "Characters Shown" thing I added? I personally think it a good idea because people would probably like to know what the characters look like.

Deciding to take back your comments

On the Mu* discussion. For a moment I wanted to comment on them that it was quite enough and not leading anywhere. But you had taken it back yourself. I do applaud that choise. Martijn Hoekstra 13:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding metal-archives.com

Encyplopedia Metallum meets the following criteria under "Links normally to be avoided" (quoted directly from WP:EL)

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.

There are plenty of other websites that are reliable that could be linked to instead that could provide all the information some users claim can only be found on the user-edited Encyclopedia Metallum. --Leon Sword 17:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can point me to where I actually said that, I'd be grateful. If it's unreliable, it's unreliable. Whatever, knock yourself out. DarkSaber2k 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's a quote taken directly from your Keep vote regarding the metal-archives.com template:
"Does not fail WP:EL in ant sense that I can see."

Check the discussion for updated reasons why the template should deleted. --Leon Sword 23:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I meant show me where I've said that EM is more reliable than the official website of a band. Because I'm amazed how "Does not fail WP:EL in ant sense that I can see." has been interpreted that way. DarkSaber2k 08:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually my reply was to your comment saying that EM didn't fail any WP:EL criteria, I copied my reply on the TFD discussion to here, thus not the entire message was meant for you, sorry for the confusion. --Leon Sword 18:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Drug Education Forum

Hi,

The Drug Education Forum's page has been tagged for speedy deletion, but I don't understand why. The Forum is not a web page or internet forum it is a umbrella organisation for national organisations in England.

The organisation has a website, but tell me one that doesn't?

Without being able to look at the article again, I'm afraid I can't give a satisfactory answer, as I can't remember. I can recommend asking the admin who actually deleted the article: Lucasbfr. According to the deletion log, he deleted it because it appeared to be a copyright infringement, so talking to him about it would probably be more helpful to you. DarkSaber2k 13:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


JUST TELL ME

That this is not a message board insted of throwing things at me Meng! You got some kind of attitude you know that?!--Manny Ribera 15:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Legend of the Green Dragon

Hi there, you tagged this a while back with the same thing... I spoke to you about this on the 12th of May, fixed the content, commented on the fact I had removed your tag, then you thanked me, and yet you've gone back recently and re-tagged it with the same thing. This is a complete pain. Some advice on what on earth we are supposed to do would be appreciated, we are talking about software that probably half a million people have used world-wide and we keep getting told that it doesn't deserve a wikipedia entry.